Thanks Sarven, Yes, clearly we have a common pain here - seeing CFPs that aren't easily LOD compatible. As others are saying, I think it boiled sown to the tools - if people (as organisers) aren't comfortable asking for stuff to be LOD-like because the authors won't stomach it, we should ask why, and how we can fix it. Very best Hugh
On 25 Apr 2013, at 14:15, Sarven Capadisli <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/24/2013 08:01 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> Thanks Sarven, Trying to make sure I understand: So you are saying >> that conferences should say that it will accept (only?) HTML. And so >> the process for paper production for me is to save/export from >> Microsoft Word as HTML, instead of doing a "print" to PDF, which is >> what I usually do? Or do you have some other HTML production system >> in mind? > > Hi Hugh. Yes, I think HTML(+RDFa) would be ideal as far as data and structure > is concerned. For presentation, naturally we use CSS, and if behaviour is > needed we have JavaScript. So, one can style their papers in ACM or LNCS or > XYZ. I wrote these stylesheets already! For everything else in between, we > have other SVG, MathML to cover majority of the things that goes into papers > these days. > > As far as how people end up with HTML, I don't know. There are a number of > ways I suppose. People use Word or WYSIWYG editors, or simply type it out. > LaTeX, or anything else for that matter can still be transformed to HTML. > > As PDF is still the dominant format, what I've done in the past is "print to > PDF" the HTML+RDFa page (given that it used ACM, LNCS, or a thesis style). > Needless to say, this doesn't get too far at the moment, in majority of the > cases since the source LaTeX needs to be provided sooner or later. > > I'm not proposing some fixed rules - this or nothing. If conferences want to > accept PDF as a secondary format (even though I personally don't like this > idea), it might still be reasonable for the remaining hardcore PDF fans. They > can figure that part out. I'm only trying to emphasize on the need for us to > get our priorities in order. > > What I'm also saying is that we i.e., organizers, authors, and funders, all > have an equal responsibility and need to contribute their own share. > > Seeing major Semantic Web / Linked Data conferences announcing the events in > these lists, meanwhile requesting the works to be submitted in *everything > but* what they are trying to accomplish is rather contradictory! > >> I hate PDF with a passion, by the way, but in the socio thingy of >> being an editor of a proceedings, it can be an enormous pain when >> people submit HTML that has local links to images, etc., even from MS >> Word documents. > > Just as conferences recommend template X to be used, it is no different for > HTML. We can prepare these templates and stylesheets. But you are right, the > potential issue with things like that is definitely there. There is probably > no sure way of avoiding that. They need to fix their bugs eventually I > suppose. I don't know. It'd be great if authors simply published their work > at their URL and just "submit" or notify the reviewers of its location. > Reviewers can save the document (at review time) to their local disk. With > that, they get a snapshot for review. If authors want to continue to improve > their work for the rest of society at that URL, they can go nuts. Reviewer > need not be concerned. Oh, and how about an open comment system? Did we just > accidentally, or indirectly improve the broken *closed* peer review system? > > Again, I don't see a problem with the technologies nor our ability to put > them to use. If one can type /paragraph, I'm sure they can manage <p>, if > they don't know it already. For sure, WYSIWYG type of tools are still very > important. If the conferences make the call, people might actually follow. > But, I'd love to see everyone involved step up to the plate. > > -Sarven > >
