subject:"Formats and icing \(Was Re\: \[ESWC 2015\] First Call for Paper\)"

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-03 Thread Colin Maudry

Hi all,

Thanks John for the references to my project.

It seems that here you need a solution that both pleases those who want
a PDF to comply with existing processes, and those who want a
machine-readable format for better Web-accessibility.

The DITA
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=dita
standard is an OASIS standard, like Open Document. It's an XML framework
dedicated to the creation of documents via the assembling of content
components, the topics. See it as a Docbook evolved. The Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Information_Typing_Architecture
is a good introduction.

In the DITA ecosystem, a processing engine has been developed by the
community, the DITA Open Toolkit http://dita-ot.github.io/. Through
its plugin system, it enables the publication of DITA content to a
myriad of output formats:

* PDF
* Simple HTML
* HTML WebHelp (fancy example http://purl.org/dita/ditardf-project)
* ePub and Kindle (through the dita4publisher plugin
http://dita4publishers.sourceforge.net/)
* ...and RDF/XML through the plugin part of the DITA RDF project
http://purl.org/dita/ditardf-project. The plugin extracts the
metadata of the documentation (author, title, creation date, links,
variables), not the meaning of the content (output example

https://github.com/ColinMaudry/dita-rdf/blob/ditaot-plugin/dita2rdf/demo/out/ditaot-userguide.rdf).
It could be extended to extract certain facts from the content.

DITA has a nice feature: its core vocabulary can be extended via
specialization, so that it can support specific purposes: learning
content, troubleshooting documents, etc.

Those who want a PDF would make a PDF rendition and those who want
machine-readable formats would use a flavour of HTML or give me a hand
with the RDF output.

What do you think?

Colin

On 02/10/2014 11:08, John Walker wrote:
Hi All,

I know Latex is the norm in academic circles, but the DITA XML
standard is widely used in industry and gaining traction in publishing.

Colin Maudry ( @CMaudry) has a project for extracting RDF metadata
from DITA content [1].
Seems to be attracting interest from Marklogic and HarperCollins [2]
and others [3].

Cheers,
John

[1] http://purl.org/dita/ditardf-project
[2] http://files.meetup.com/1645603/meetup-2014-08-12.pptx
[3]
http://de.slideshare.net/TheresaGrotendorst/towards-dynamic-and-smart-content-semantic-technologies-for-adaptive-technical-documentation

On October 2, 2014 at 12:03 AM Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk
wrote:

Greetings.

On 2014 Oct 1, at 22:36, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote:

So forget PDF. Perhaps we can add markup to Latex documents and make
them linked data friendly? That would be cool. A Latex RDF
serialization :)

There exists
http://www.siegfried-handschuh.net/pub/2007/salt_eswc2007.pdf:

SALT: Semantically Annotated LATEX Tudor Groza Siegfried Handschuh
Hak Lae Kim

Digital Enterprise Research Institute
IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan
Galway, Ireland
{tudor.groza, siegfried.handschuh, haklae.kim}@deri.org

ABSTRACT

Machine-understandable data constitutes the basis for the Seman-
tic Desktop. We provide in this paper means to author and annotate
Semantic Documents on the Desktop. In our approach, the PDF file
format is the basis for semantic documents, which store both a
document and the related metadata in a single file. To achieve this we
provide a framework, SALT that extends the Latex writ- ing environment
and supports the creation of metadata for scien- tific publications.
SALT lets the scientific author create metadata while putting together
the content of a research paper. We discuss some of the requirements
one has to meet when developing such an ontology-based writing
environment and we describe a usage scenario.

That describes a very thorough approach to embedding some semantics
within LaTeX documents.

Yes, 'thorough'; very thorough; verging on the intimidating.

I dimly recall that there was a rather more lightweight approach
which was used for proceedings in ISWC or ESWC -- I remember marking
up a LaTeX document in something less comprehensive than SALT -- but I
can't remember enough to be able to re-find it.

All the best,

Norman

--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

attachment: colin.vcf

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-03 Thread Luca Matteis

Dear Sarven et al,

I'd like to say that I'm an HTML/CSS/JavaScript aficionado so I'd be
the first to embrace Web standards to produce publications. I'm simply
playing a bit of the devil's advocate here because I think that Latex
is still more mature than HTML for writing papers. However, I must
admit I'd like to see a future where that is different.

But before we ask conferences to embrace this still immature HTML
world (at least for producing papers) we must write the frameworks,
the libraries, the CSS templates that enable the same level of
publication that Latex enables. JavaScript for example can help with
the kerning issue (http://kerningjs.com/) and this should be part of
the HTML publisher toolkit. For solving the browser inconsistencies,
standalone tools (based on a Webkit engine for example) must be built
that produce a consistent printable layout no matter the operating
system (browser fonts render differently on Mac/Windows/Linux).

So yes, we can get there, but there's some work to be done to prove
that HTML is up for task. And once we get there, then we can start
going crazy and adding interactions which is really the power of the
Web platform.

Phillip Lord, by interactions I don't mean simple animations, I mean
this: http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ - use the right side
scrolling to instantly see the output given different inputs. That's
powerful stuff.

Best,
Luca

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Colin Maudry co...@maudry.com wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks John for the references to my project.

It seems that here you need a solution that both pleases those who want a
PDF to comply with existing processes, and those who want a machine-readable
format for better Web-accessibility.

The DITA standard is an OASIS standard, like Open Document. It's an XML
framework dedicated to the creation of documents via the assembling of
content components, the topics. See it as a Docbook evolved. The Wikipedia
page is a good introduction.

In the DITA ecosystem, a processing engine has been developed by the
community, the DITA Open Toolkit. Through its plugin system, it enables the
publication of DITA content to a myriad of output formats:

PDF
Simple HTML
HTML WebHelp (fancy example)
ePub and Kindle (through the dita4publisher plugin)
...and RDF/XML through the plugin part of the DITA RDF project. The plugin
extracts the metadata of the documentation (author, title, creation date,
links, variables), not the meaning of the content (output example). It could
be extended to extract certain facts from the content.

DITA has a nice feature: its core vocabulary can be extended via
specialization, so that it can support specific purposes: learning
content, troubleshooting documents, etc.

Those who want a PDF would make a PDF rendition and those who want
machine-readable formats would use a flavour of HTML or give me a hand with
the RDF output.

What do you think?

Colin

On 02/10/2014 11:08, John Walker wrote:

Hi All,

I know Latex is the norm in academic circles, but the DITA XML standard is
widely used in industry and gaining traction in publishing.

Colin Maudry ( @CMaudry) has a project for extracting RDF metadata from DITA
content [1].
Seems to be attracting interest from Marklogic and HarperCollins [2] and
others [3].

Cheers,
John

On October 2, 2014 at 12:03 AM Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:

Greetings.

On 2014 Oct 1, at 22:36, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote:

So forget PDF. Perhaps we can add markup to Latex documents and make
them linked data friendly? That would be cool. A Latex RDF
serialization :)

There exists
http://www.siegfried-handschuh.net/pub/2007/salt_eswc2007.pdf:

SALT: Semantically Annotated LATEX Tudor Groza Siegfried Handschuh Hak
Lae Kim

Digital Enterprise Research Institute
IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan
Galway, Ireland
{tudor.groza, siegfried.handschuh, haklae.kim}@deri.org

ABSTRACT

Machine-understandable data constitutes the basis for the Seman- tic
Desktop. We provide in this paper means to author and annotate Semantic
Documents on the Desktop. In our approach, the PDF file format is the basis
for semantic documents, which store both a document and the related
metadata
in a single file. To achieve this we provide a framework, SALT that extends
the Latex writ- ing environment and supports the creation of metadata for
scien- tific publications. SALT lets the scientific author create metadata
while putting together the content of a research paper. We discuss some of
the requirements one has to meet when developing such an ontology-based
writing environment and we describe a usage scenario.

That describes a very thorough

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-03 Thread John Walker

Hi Luca,

I'll admit my opinion is probably skewed by nearly 15 years working in and
around technical documentation environment using structured authoring tools like
FrameMaker and Oxygen based on XML/SGML technologies.

I'm a firm convert from WYSIWIG environments like MS Word to more structured
'semantic' markup made possible with XML... sometimes referred to as WYSIWYM or
What You See Is What You Mean.
There are some great tools out there that make editing a doddle and allow use of
vector images (SVG) and mathematical formulas (MathML) directly in your XML
document.
As it is XML, then weaving in some RDFa is also possible if you are so inclined

Going to the rendered publication format whether that be page-based (PDF) or
web-based (HTML) or whatever else is possible via a myriad of approach whether
you prefer Latex, HTML+CSS+JS or XSL-FO (for the masochists out there :)
Certainly most technical authors I know would run a mile were you to suggest the
edit directly as Latex or XSL-FO, or even raw XML/HTML for that matter, but
perhaps developers would be more comfortable with it.

DITA on top of this offers the specialization as Colin mentioned, but also a
myriad of different (direct and indirect) referencing possibilities to pull and
push content between different documents.

HTML imports [1] and custom elements [2] might offer some of these options in
HTML at some point in the future.

Cheers,
John

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-imports/
[2] http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/


 On October 3, 2014 at 10:59 AM Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote:


 Dear Sarven et al,

 I'd like to say that I'm an HTML/CSS/JavaScript aficionado so I'd be
 the first to embrace Web standards to produce publications. I'm simply
 playing a bit of the devil's advocate here because I think that Latex
 is still more mature than HTML for writing papers. However, I must
 admit I'd like to see a future where that is different.

 But before we ask conferences to embrace this still immature HTML
 world (at least for producing papers) we must write the frameworks,
 the libraries, the CSS templates that enable the same level of
 publication that Latex enables. JavaScript for example can help with
 the kerning issue (http://kerningjs.com/) and this should be part of
 the HTML publisher toolkit. For solving the browser inconsistencies,
 standalone tools (based on a Webkit engine for example) must be built
 that produce a consistent printable layout no matter the operating
 system (browser fonts render differently on Mac/Windows/Linux).

 So yes, we can get there, but there's some work to be done to prove
 that HTML is up for task. And once we get there, then we can start
 going crazy and adding interactions which is really the power of the
 Web platform.

 Phillip Lord, by interactions I don't mean simple animations, I mean
 this: http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ - use the right side
 scrolling to instantly see the output given different inputs. That's
 powerful stuff.

 Best,
 Luca

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Colin Maudry co...@maudry.com wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  Thanks John for the references to my project.
 
  It seems that here you need a solution that both pleases those who want a
  PDF to comply with existing processes, and those who want a machine-readable
  format for better Web-accessibility.
 
  The DITA standard is an OASIS standard, like Open Document. It's an XML
  framework dedicated to the creation of documents via the assembling of
  content components, the topics. See it as a Docbook evolved. The Wikipedia
  page is a good introduction.
 
  In the DITA ecosystem, a processing engine has been developed by the
  community, the DITA Open Toolkit. Through its plugin system, it enables the
  publication of DITA content to a myriad of output formats:
 
  PDF
  Simple HTML
  HTML WebHelp (fancy example)
  ePub and Kindle (through the dita4publisher plugin)
  ...and RDF/XML through the plugin part of the DITA RDF project. The plugin
  extracts the metadata of the documentation (author, title, creation date,
  links, variables), not the meaning of the content (output example). It could
  be extended to extract certain facts from the content.
 
  DITA has a nice feature: its core vocabulary can be extended via
  specialization, so that it can support specific purposes: learning
  content, troubleshooting documents, etc.
 
  Those who want a PDF would make a PDF rendition and those who want
  machine-readable formats would use a flavour of HTML or give me a hand with
  the RDF output.
 
  What do you think?
 
  Colin
 
  On 02/10/2014 11:08, John Walker wrote:
 
  Hi All,
 
  I know Latex is the norm in academic circles, but the DITA XML standard is
  widely used in industry and gaining traction in publishing.
 
  Colin Maudry ( @CMaudry) has a project for extracting RDF metadata from DITA
  content [1].
  Seems to be attracting interest from Marklogic and HarperCollins [2] and
  others [3].
 
  Cheers,

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-03 Thread Phillip Lord

Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com writes:
 I'd like to say that I'm an HTML/CSS/JavaScript aficionado so I'd be
 the first to embrace Web standards to produce publications. I'm simply
 playing a bit of the devil's advocate here because I think that Latex
 is still more mature than HTML for writing papers. However, I must
 admit I'd like to see a future where that is different.

The conference does not want latex, it wants PDF. So write your
documents in latex, publish in HTML. The only thing that needs to change
are the tools in the middle.


 But before we ask conferences to embrace this still immature HTML
 world (at least for producing papers) we must write the frameworks,
 the libraries, the CSS templates that enable the same level of
 publication that Latex enables.

Well, that's already been done. As for the same level of publication I
profoundly disagree. LNCS format is very poor for anything other than
printing. I want a form of publication that allows me, the reader, to
switch layout.

 For solving the browser inconsistencies, standalone tools (based on a
 Webkit engine for example) must be built that produce a consistent
 printable layout no matter the operating system (browser fonts render
 differently on Mac/Windows/Linux).

Seriously? You want to build another browser. My experience is that the
web is more consistent than PDF. Font problems with PDFs used to be the
norm. Tend not to use them now, so perhaps that's changed.

And, again, printable? At least some of us want to move away from that.
Stlying in reader issue, not an authorial one.


 So yes, we can get there, but there's some work to be done to prove
 that HTML is up for task. 

No. There is work to be done to prove that we can break the habit of a
lifetime. HTML is far from immature. We move, and then we fix any
problems that we may have. Why would we bother before?

 Phillip Lord, by interactions I don't mean simple animations, I mean
 this: http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ - use the right side
 scrolling to instantly see the output given different inputs. That's
 powerful stuff.

Colour figures and animations would be a nice start though.

Phil

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-02 Thread Ghislain Atemezing


On 01/10/2014 21:55, Luca Matteis wrote:

But why is it backwards? We have different formats serving different
purposes. Diversity is healthy. Simply because PDF is not in the Web
stack it doesn't make it Web-unfriendly.


In 2013, PDF was mentioned during ODW2013 [0] workshop and I quote part 
of the final report [1] below regarding PDF:


(...) PDF - often referred to as the format where data goes to die. In 
the open data world, PDF has a bad name as it is not deemed machine 
processable. As Adobe's Jim King pointed out in his presentation [2] , 
this is perhaps unfair. PDF can include structured tables, can carry 
associated metadata, extractable text and more. It is the way that PDFs 
are generated - using basic tools that don't support all the features - 
that renders PDF documents opaque to machine processes.


This could be an opportunity to work closer with Adobe's folks to see 
how web stack can help process data in PDF...


Best,
Ghislain

[0] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/
[1] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/report
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/Role_of_PDF_and_Opendata_final.pdf
--
Ghislain Atemezing
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
Campus SophiaTech
450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr  ghislain.atemez...@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
Google+:http://google.com/+GhislainATEMEZING
Twitter:@gatemezing

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-02 Thread John Walker

Hi All,

I know Latex is the norm in academic circles, but the DITA XML standard is
widely used in industry and gaining traction in publishing.

Colin Maudry ( @CMaudry) has a project for extracting RDF metadata from DITA
content [1].
Seems to be attracting interest from Marklogic and HarperCollins [2] and others
[3].

Cheers,
John

On October 2, 2014 at 12:03 AM Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:

Greetings.

On 2014 Oct 1, at 22:36, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote:

So forget PDF. Perhaps we can add markup to Latex documents and make
them linked data friendly? That would be cool. A Latex RDF
serialization :)

There exists http://www.siegfried-handschuh.net/pub/2007/salt_eswc2007.pdf:

SALT: Semantically Annotated LATEX Tudor Groza Siegfried Handschuh Hak Lae
Kim

Digital Enterprise Research Institute
IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan
Galway, Ireland
{tudor.groza, siegfried.handschuh, haklae.kim}@deri.org

ABSTRACT

Machine-understandable data constitutes the basis for the Seman- tic
Desktop. We provide in this paper means to author and annotate Semantic
Documents on the Desktop. In our approach, the PDF file format is the basis
for semantic documents, which store both a document and the related metadata
in a single file. To achieve this we provide a framework, SALT that extends
the Latex writ- ing environment and supports the creation of metadata for
scien- tific publications. SALT lets the scientific author create metadata
while putting together the content of a research paper. We discuss some of
the requirements one has to meet when developing such an ontology-based
writing environment and we describe a usage scenario.

That describes a very thorough approach to embedding some semantics within
LaTeX documents.

Yes, 'thorough'; very thorough; verging on the intimidating.

I dimly recall that there was a rather more lightweight approach which was
used for proceedings in ISWC or ESWC -- I remember marking up a LaTeX document
in something less comprehensive than SALT -- but I can't remember enough to be
able to re-find it.

All the best,

Norman

--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-02 Thread Sarven Capadisli


On 2014-10-02 10:36, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:

On 01/10/2014 21:55, Luca Matteis wrote:

But why is it backwards? We have different formats serving different
purposes. Diversity is healthy. Simply because PDF is not in the Web
stack it doesn't make it Web-unfriendly.


In 2013, PDF was mentioned during ODW2013 [0] workshop and I quote part
of the final report [1] below regarding PDF:

(...) PDF - often referred to as the format where data goes to die. In
the open data world, PDF has a bad name as it is not deemed machine
processable. As Adobe's Jim King pointed out in his presentation [2] ,
this is perhaps unfair. PDF can include structured tables, can carry
associated metadata, extractable text and more. It is the way that PDFs
are generated - using basic tools that don't support all the features -
that renders PDF documents opaque to machine processes.

This could be an opportunity to work closer with Adobe's folks to see
how web stack can help process data in PDF...

Best,
Ghislain

[0] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/
[1] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/report
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/Role_of_PDF_and_Opendata_final.pdf


Thanks for sharing Ghislain.

Lets not forget that we have SW/LD supporters that go after public 
institutions to aim for 5-star Linked Data. Or ask for public funding to 
support their SW/LD research.


Ironic Facts:

* Majority of the SW/LD research output is publicly funded
* Majority of the SW/LD research venues promote 1-star Linked Data

So, yes, we can do a lot of different things and in fact, a lot of 
people are doing different things to improve open science and communication.


The question is, what efforts are the SW/LD research venues making? How 
are they compromising or improving the state of things? What has changed 
in recent memory?


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-02 Thread Jean-Baptiste Bohuon

Hi everybody,

I won't disturb the discussion a lot, but what you say is really
interesting! From my academic and physical sciences bias (as a student
at master's level at université Paris-Sud), this is just NOT the way
publication is considered by the researchers of my university.

So may I leak what is exchange here to another discussion (on facebook,
sorry…). It is HackYourPhD, a French group working on open science:
http://hackyourphd.org
https://www.facebook.com/groups/499463776745202/

Best,

Jibé

Le 01/10/2014 21:26, Sarven Capadisli a écrit :
On 2014-10-01 21:05, Luca Matteis wrote:
Dear Sarven,

This stuff is really cool: http://linked-research.270a.info/

Couple of questions: How did you come up with such a close CSS/HTML
template as the LCNS latex version? Did you hand code the CSS to make
it look as close as possible or was it automated by some tool I'm not
aware of?

As venues always give precise instructions on what template to follow e.g.:

http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1121537/application/pdf/SPLNPROC+Author+Instructions_Aug2014.pdf

that's exactly what I did. Read it line by line and wrote the CSS for it.

There is no doubt that the CSS can be better. Different browsers for
instance have varying CSS3 print support.

If you thought http://linked-research.270a.info/ looked cool, why not
change the link href=lncs.css to acm.css from your browser's
developer tool.

What's demanded by the conferences/publishers is an archaic
presentation. Fixed page length. Fixed view. So be it. That is a small
subset of what we can achieve using the Web stack.

What you're saying about moving towards RDFa for publishing papers
should definitely be discussed more, however, CSS/HTML still fails in
a lot of things that Latex on the other hand excels at. For example
typography and font kerning/spacing. All that works really well in
latex/pdf, while in HTML you get different results in different
browsers. Journals certainly can't expect inconsistencies. I've seen
templates built in PDF using Latex that you can dream of using
HTML/CSS. It's just a better set of tools for when it comes to
publishing *static* documents, because they were built for static
documents. The Web on the other hand is rarely static. It's an
interactive playground better suited for a DOM structure such as HTML.

Let me ask you to take a step back for a second. Are you convinced that
there are far more possibilities with LaTeX/PDF for data representation,
presentation and interaction than HTML+CSS+JavaScript+RDFa+SVG+MathML..
? Do we really need to battle that out? :) Don't worry, I will. As I'll
demonstrate in my final PhD dissertation ;)

If PDF was so good at static documents, we'd have the Web of PDFs
instead of Web of HTMLs. I disagree that the Web is rarely static.

As far as the print precision goes, I agree, CSS3 and browser support
for printing has a lot of work to do. But, what level of precision is
the SW/LD conferences are worried about providing to publishers? I
recall that Springer for instance asks for only the PDF. What that
practically means it that, one can go from LaTeX, HTML+CSS, or dare I
say, JPEG to PDF. There is no precision police for rendering. Most
people and organizations have printers that have 300-600 DPI support.

Isn't there just a standard way to add RDF markup to a PDF file?

Maybe. But, that's totally backwards, IMO.

-Sarven

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-02 Thread Phillip Lord

Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com writes
 So until we start building interactive publications, 
 I see no reason to move away from the
 wonders that Latex/PDF can accomplish. 


Because PDF is rubbish on the web.

Because almost all of the software tools for data visualisation are
being written in JS these days.

Because PDF is hard to extract from.

Because embedding metadata is easy in HTML.

Because, we do not make interactive publications because the technology
we are using is antiquated and does not let us, not because we do not
want to. I've even have journals try to charge me extra for colour.

And, besides, we are making interactive publications. The bioinformatics
community do this all the time. Often with data, and downloadable VMs so
you can rerun the analysis.

 Maybe. But, that's totally backwards, IMO.

 But why is it backwards? We have different formats serving different
 purposes. Diversity is healthy. Simply because PDF is not in the Web
 stack it doesn't make it Web-unfriendly.

Yes, actually, it does.

Phil

Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-01 Thread Sarven Capadisli


On 2014-10-01 19:10, Laura Dawson wrote:

What about EPUB, which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup? It
also provides for fixed-layout.


IMO, this particular discussion is not what we should be focusing on. 
And, it almost always deters from the main topic. There are a number of 
ways to get to Web friendly representations and presentations. EPUB? 
Sure. Whatever floats the author's boat. As long as we can precisely 
identify and be able to discover the items in research papers, that's 
all fine.


I personally don't find the need to set any hard limitations on (X)HTML 
or which vocabularies to use. So, schema.org is not granular enough at 
this time. There are more appropriate ones out there e.g: e.g., 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2014Jul/0179.html , but 
that doesn't mean that we can't use them along with schema.org.


I favour plain HTML+CSS+RDFa to get things going e.g.:

https://github.com/csarven/linked-research

(I will not dwell on the use of SVG, MathML, JavaScript etc. at this 
point, but you get the picture).


The primary focus right now is to have SW/LD venues compromise i.e., not 
insist only on Adobe's PDF, but welcome Web native technologies.


Debating on which Doctype or vocabulary or whatever is like the icing on 
the cake. Can we first bring the flour into our kitchen?


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-01 Thread Laura Dawson

Apologies, Sarven. I was just trying to point out some options and
resources for those who were interested.

On 10/1/14, 2:42 PM, Sarven Capadisli i...@csarven.ca wrote:

On 2014-10-01 19:10, Laura Dawson wrote:
 What about EPUB, which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup?
It
 also provides for fixed-layout.

IMO, this particular discussion is not what we should be focusing on.
And, it almost always deters from the main topic. There are a number of
ways to get to Web friendly representations and presentations. EPUB?
Sure. Whatever floats the author's boat. As long as we can precisely
identify and be able to discover the items in research papers, that's
all fine.

I personally don't find the need to set any hard limitations on (X)HTML
or which vocabularies to use. So, schema.org is not granular enough at
this time. There are more appropriate ones out there e.g: e.g.,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2014Jul/0179.html , but
that doesn't mean that we can't use them along with schema.org.

I favour plain HTML+CSS+RDFa to get things going e.g.:

https://github.com/csarven/linked-research

(I will not dwell on the use of SVG, MathML, JavaScript etc. at this
point, but you get the picture).

The primary focus right now is to have SW/LD venues compromise i.e., not
insist only on Adobe's PDF, but welcome Web native technologies.

Debating on which Doctype or vocabulary or whatever is like the icing on
the cake. Can we first bring the flour into our kitchen?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-01 Thread Gannon Dick

Not to pile on Sarven, said Gannon, piling on, but I recently tripped over the 
XSD validation tests I did a couple of years ago.  They are XHTML 1.1 + RDFa 
all zipped up so you won't have to stitch the schema together (it is 20+ little 
files).  If anyone wants it please contact me off-board.
(If you are the person who stole my Nook, contact me.  Then run.)
--Gannon

On Wed, 10/1/14, Sarven Capadisli i...@csarven.ca wrote:

 Subject: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
 To: Laura Dawson laura.daw...@bowker.com, Kingsley Idehen 
kide...@openlinksw.com, public-lod@w3.org public-lod@w3.org
 Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2014, 1:42 PM
 
 On 2014-10-01 19:10,
 Laura Dawson wrote:
  What about EPUB,
 which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup? It
  also provides for fixed-layout.
 
 IMO, this particular
 discussion is not what we should be focusing on. 
 And, it almost always deters from the main
 topic. There are a number of 
 ways to get to
 Web friendly representations and presentations.
 EPUB? 
 Sure. Whatever floats the
 author's boat. As long as we can precisely 
 identify and be able to discover the items in
 research papers, that's 
 all fine.
 
 I personally don't find
 the need to set any hard limitations on (X)HTML 
 or which vocabularies to use. So, schema.org is
 not granular enough at 
 this time. There are
 more appropriate ones out there e.g: e.g., 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2014Jul/0179.html
 , but 
 that doesn't mean that we
 can't use them along with schema.org.
 
 I favour plain HTML+CSS+RDFa
 to get things going e.g.:
 
 https://github.com/csarven/linked-research
 
 (I will not dwell on the use
 of SVG, MathML, JavaScript etc. at this 
 point, but you get the picture).
 
 The primary focus right now is
 to have SW/LD venues compromise i.e., not 
 insist only on Adobe's PDF, but welcome Web
 native technologies.
 
 Debating on which Doctype or vocabulary or
 whatever is like the icing on 
 the cake. Can
 we first bring the flour into our kitchen?
 
 -Sarven
 http://csarven.ca/#i

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-01 Thread Luca Matteis

Dear Sarven,

This stuff is really cool: http://linked-research.270a.info/

Couple of questions: How did you come up with such a close CSS/HTML
template as the LCNS latex version? Did you hand code the CSS to make
it look as close as possible or was it automated by some tool I'm not
aware of?

What you're saying about moving towards RDFa for publishing papers
should definitely be discussed more, however, CSS/HTML still fails in
a lot of things that Latex on the other hand excels at. For example
typography and font kerning/spacing. All that works really well in
latex/pdf, while in HTML you get different results in different
browsers. Journals certainly can't expect inconsistencies. I've seen
templates built in PDF using Latex that you can dream of using
HTML/CSS. It's just a better set of tools for when it comes to
publishing *static* documents, because they were built for static
documents. The Web on the other hand is rarely static. It's an
interactive playground better suited for a DOM structure such as HTML.

Isn't there just a standard way to add RDF markup to a PDF file?

Best,
Luca

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Laura Dawson laura.daw...@bowker.com wrote:
 Apologies, Sarven. I was just trying to point out some options and
 resources for those who were interested.

 On 10/1/14, 2:42 PM, Sarven Capadisli i...@csarven.ca wrote:

On 2014-10-01 19:10, Laura Dawson wrote:
 What about EPUB, which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup?
It
 also provides for fixed-layout.

IMO, this particular discussion is not what we should be focusing on.
And, it almost always deters from the main topic. There are a number of
ways to get to Web friendly representations and presentations. EPUB?
Sure. Whatever floats the author's boat. As long as we can precisely
identify and be able to discover the items in research papers, that's
all fine.

I personally don't find the need to set any hard limitations on (X)HTML
or which vocabularies to use. So, schema.org is not granular enough at
this time. There are more appropriate ones out there e.g: e.g.,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2014Jul/0179.html , but
that doesn't mean that we can't use them along with schema.org.

I favour plain HTML+CSS+RDFa to get things going e.g.:

https://github.com/csarven/linked-research

(I will not dwell on the use of SVG, MathML, JavaScript etc. at this
point, but you get the picture).

The primary focus right now is to have SW/LD venues compromise i.e., not
insist only on Adobe's PDF, but welcome Web native technologies.

Debating on which Doctype or vocabulary or whatever is like the icing on
the cake. Can we first bring the flour into our kitchen?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

2014-10-01 Thread Sarven Capadisli

On 2014-10-01 21:05, Luca Matteis wrote:

Dear Sarven,