On 2014-10-01 13:36, Mauro Dragoni wrote:
Papers should not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length and must be
formatted according to the guidelines for LNCS authors. Papers must be
submitted in PDF (Adobe's Portable Document Format) format.
As I understand it, there is a disconnect between the
Dear Saven,
The scientific articles are presenting scientific achievements in a format that
is suitable for human consumption.
Documents in a portable format remain the best way to do that for a conference
today.
However:
- all the metadata of the conference are published as linked data e.g.
On 2014-10-01 18:12, Fabien Gandon wrote:
Dear Saven,
Thank your for your response Fabien.
The scientific articles are presenting scientific achievements in a format that
is suitable for human consumption.
Documents in a portable format remain the best way to do that for a conference
On 10/1/14 12:35 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
On 2014-10-01 18:12, Fabien Gandon wrote:
Dear Saven,
Thank your for your response Fabien.
The scientific articles are presenting scientific achievements in a
format that is suitable for human consumption.
Documents in a portable format remain
What about EPUB, which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup? It
also provides for fixed-layout.
On 10/1/14, 12:55 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 10/1/14 12:35 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
On 2014-10-01 18:12, Fabien Gandon wrote:
Dear Saven,
Thank your for your
+1 to Sarven's proposal.
We have to start 'at home' with improving publication process output. Quite
frankly, if the experts in linked data don't lead by example and show the
benefits, how / why will conference organizers publishers change how they do
things. That said, we have to show
Hello
To follow the proposal of Laura Dawson.
I'm working on methods and tools to put and use semantic in ePub.
I'm interested to offer support to help the conference organizers and the
authors to produce a semantic ePub as proceedings of the conference.
Best regards
--
Jean-Claude Moissinac
On 10/1/14 1:10 PM, Laura Dawson wrote:
What about EPUB, which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup? It
also provides for fixed-layout.
Laura,
As long as it reflects what we are requesting of others, in regards to
Linked Open Data publication, it's all good :-)
Do you have a
There is a WordPress based tool called Press Books that is nearly identical to
the blogging platform but also spits out ePub, Kindle and PDF versions. So you
write in HTML, and publish any way you want. It has schema.org support, though
I haven’t used it. I published an old collection of short
Kingsley, you can go here (http://idpf.org/epub) for info and specs. And
you can go here (http://www.pressbooks.com) to access the tool I was
talking about in my previous email. EPUB¹s intention is indeed to provide
open, ³webby² publication. (Though not all vendors want that - and their
rendering
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
I agree, Laura.
If you are roaming overseas (in any direction) and a friend sends you a chunk
of data which may not be accessible publically or wants to send you only
Chapter 416 of 837 then it teaches publishers nothing but may keep ISP's in
Champagne for years to come. Yes, London has free
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
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.
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?
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
On 10/1/14 2:42 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
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
What about:
HTML+CSS+(RDFa | Microdata | JSON-LD | TURTLE) ?
Basically, we have to get to:
HTML+CSS+(Any RDF
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Sarven Capadisli i...@csarven.ca wrote:
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
It may help to preemptively address concerns here. Does anyone have a
HTML+CSS(+RDFa) template that looks exactly like the LNCS-formatted PDFs?
Can we show that papers using this template:
- look consistent with each other (follow the LNCS typesetting instructions)
- look the same as the PDF
On 10/1/14 3:26 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
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
On 10/1/14 3:55 PM, 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.
The issue arises when Linked Open Data is packing into a PDF silo. The
big
I guess PDF is sort of the compiled version while we're talking
about the source of the document (HTML). You can convert both Latex
and HTML to PDF. So I guess perhaps what I'm saying is that Latex is a
better tool than HTML for writing publications simply because it was
built for that.
So forget
On 2014-10-01 22:32, Pablo N. Mendes wrote:
It may help to preemptively address concerns here. Does anyone have a
HTML+CSS(+RDFa) template that looks exactly like the LNCS-formatted
PDFs? Can we show that papers using this template:
- look consistent with each other (follow the LNCS typesetting
Sarven, great work! We definitely need more initiatives like yours.
It seems to me a big hindrance to this adoption is more sociologically than
technological.
A quick suggestion - in the current thread we have people saying HTML/RDFa
-- LaTeX - why not the other way around?
Having LaTeX --
On 2014-10-01 21:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 10/1/14 2:42 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
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
What about:
HTML+CSS+(RDFa | Microdata | JSON-LD | TURTLE) ?
Hey all,
is there any established and/or widely supported LaTeX XML schema?
I have found several projects, but not sure how much they're used:
- http://dlmf.nist.gov/LaTeXML/
- http://getfo.org/texml/
- http://www-sop.inria.fr/marelle/tralics/
If there would be an agreed XML schema, it would be
Actually LaTeXML seems to do pretty much I what I was thinking about:
http://dlmf.nist.gov/LaTeXML/manual/usage/usage.single.html#SS0.SSS0.P7
Could be packaged in a more user-friendly way though.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Martynas Jusevičius
marty...@graphity.org wrote:
Hey all,
is
On 10/1/14 5:36 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
I guess PDF is sort of the compiled version while we're talking
about the source of the document (HTML).
No, there is structured data locked (inaccessible) from the PDF. In
HTML+(RDF based Structured Data Island Notation) you have loose coupling
of
I never claimed it was not social. But as it is often the case, it may be
rooted in or (falsely) justified by technical misinformation.
Sorry for having missed the discussions that addressed these concerns.
Thanks for reiterating, because others may have missed them too. Perhaps we
should go even
29 matches
Mail list logo
