On 04/29/2013 10:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/29/13 4:21 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:On 04/29/2013 10:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:On 4/29/13 3:23 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:On 04/29/2013 09:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:On 4/29/13 1:29 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote:Hi,ok. Let's see if we can offer xhtml+RDFa as an additional format, and see how people react. I'll spread the idea a bit.Why stop at xhtml+RDFa when you also have: 1. html+microdata 2. html+turtle -- where you use <script/> for embedding Turtle. Note, picking winners (overtly or covertly) is always a shortcut to politically induced inertia. It's best to do the complete opposite which has the net effect of demonstrating the innate dexterity of the RDF.Sure, why not. We can do all of that. Not the challenge. Will you get the ISWC organizers to accept *HTML*?If I had such influence, of course :-)That's what I would love to hear.You heard it now.The rest is really details. We can have 20 different machine readable versions of the document if we want. Lets have 1 that's acceptable to get things rolling!Yes, but why do you think xhtml+rdfa is the one? My point is that we don't know "the one", because that shouldn't matter in a world of URIs and RDF based Linked Data :-)You are right! I was proposing (X)HTML(+RDFa) because that's arguably most common and simple enough to carry forward.I doubt it is. I even doubt its broad use.
What's your comparison?I was comparing it to other; RDF formats, Microdata, and maybe even microformats (which may even be more common). I could be wrong. I'm not fixated on any as long as we are moving away from PDF :)
By having the accompanying CSS which follows the widely used presentations, it is fairly on an equal footing with the currently dominant format. It keeps reviewers happy since the "papers" are fairly consistent. If we are willing to hack around getting structured data in and out of PDF, I'm sure we can run circles around that via HTML+Whatever.I would hope so, and that's vital.I just didn't want us to get lost in those possibilities and missing the main mark :)So you have negate the inadvertent introduction of new hurdles :-)
The primary win IMHO is to use HTML. Whatever it is accompanied with is a bonus considering the current state of things. Publishing the research on a webpage is closely tied to that because we can actually start to unleash the work on the Web in a friendly manner, as opposed to putting up a format that's intended for the desktop on the Web.
The fact that PDF can carry RDF, or that some search companies are able to present a view of the cached PDFs directly in the browser (like a webpage or an application) are nice things. But they are merely some of the workarounds to the problem that we got ourselves into.
-Sarven
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
