On 04/24/2013 05:54 PM, Carsten Keßler wrote:
We had this discussion among the Linked Science workshop organizers several times. I'm with Paul, I think that a human-readable description is central to the dissemination of research results (and will probably remain for the foreseeable future). I'm not saying that PDF is the best way to do this, especially when it comes to pointing to or even integrating additional resources, but it is certainly the most widely accepted one. This also leads directly to the question how to make sure that we produce is still readable in 10, 20, or even 50 years? IMO, there's no big risk if you go with PDF, but for other, less main-stream formats – who knows?If the semantic web community as a whole comes up with a better way of publishing results that also ensures archiving and long-term accessibility, plus better integration with non-textual resources, I'm all for it. In fact, the Linked Science workshop would be a good venue to present and discuss ideas in this direction.
To be honest, it is shocking to read that on this mailing list!It doesn't sound like you are convinced of this Web thing, when you say that the desktop PDF thing is less of a risk to publish and access information.
We already have a great mechanism in place that forever changed the world, thanks to TimBL and everyone that contributed to the Web architecture. Still need to be convinced of the application that you use everyday?
Stop looking for some magical new technology, because we already have a whole suit of them that's native to the Web.
-Sarven
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
