Hi Ivan, > On 5 Oct 2014, at 16:42, Ivan Herman <i...@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 05 Oct 2014, at 16:47 , Laura Dawson <laura.daw...@bowker.com> wrote: > >> I think I mentioned previously, Ivan, but perhaps not on this thread - >> Hugh McGuire has developed a Wordpress tool called PressBooks which allows >> you to write a book in HTML and export it as an EPUB file. He even >> supports schema.org markup in a separate plugin. >> (http://www.pressbooks.com) > > Indeed, I forgot! > > The problem with this service (but also for the others I guess) is that, at > least through the standard offers on the sites), they may not be appropriate > for a workshop, that would require leaving access to a large(r) numbers of > submitters in the submission phase, followed by a selection process to end up > in a small number of the submissions in the final book. This does not really > fit in the business models. It should be up to the scholarly publishers to > pick this up… Yes, we must keep remembering that the documents are simply one bit of a social machine, long before they get anywhere near (the unlikely event of them) being published. > > (But I guess we digress greatly from the main topic of this mailing list, ie, > semantic web…) We did that quite a while ago, I think :-) But in the end you just gotta go with the flow, man.
Best Hugh > > Ivan > >> >> On 10/5/14, 10:34 AM, "Ivan Herman" <i...@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> This is not a direct answer to Daniel, but rather expanding on what he >>> said. Actually, he and I were (and still are) in the same IW3C2 >>> committee, ie, we share the experience; and I was one of those (although >>> the credit really goes to Bob Hopgood, actually, who was pushing that the >>> most) who tried to come up with a proper XHTML template. >>> >>> The real problem is still the missing tooling. Authors, even if >>> technically savy like this community, want to do what they set up to do: >>> write their papers as quickly as possible. They do not want to spend >>> their time going through some esoteric CSS massaging, for example. Let us >>> face it: we are not yet there. The tools for authoring are still very >>> poor. This in spite of the fact that many realize that PDF is really not >>> the format for our age; we need much more than a reproduction of a >>> printed page digitally (as someone referred to in the thread I really >>> suffer when I have to read, let alone review, an article in PDF on my >>> iPad...). >>> >>> But I do see an evolution that might change in the coming years. Laura >>> dropped the magic word on the early phases if this thread: ePub. ePub is >>> a packaged (zip archived) HTML site, with some additional information. It >>> is the format that most of the ebook readers understand (hey, it can even >>> be converted into a Kindle format:-). Both Firefox and Chrome have ePub >>> reader extensions available and Mac OS comes with a free ebook reader >>> (iBook) that is based on it. I expect (hope) that the convergence between >>> ePub and browsers will bring these even closer in the coming years. >>> Because ePub is a packaged web site, with the core content in HTML5 (or >>> SVG), metadata can be added to the content in RDFa, microdata, embedded >>> JSON-LD; in fact, metadata can also be added to the archive as a separate >>> file so if you are crazy enough you can even add RDF data in RDF/XML (no, >>> please, don't do it:-). And, of course, it can be as much as a hypertext >>> as you can just master:-) >>> >>> Tooling? No, not yet:-( Well, not yet for lambda users. But there, too, >>> there is an evolution. The fact is that publishers are working on "XML >>> first" (or "HTML first") workflows. O'Reilly's Atlas tool[1] means that >>> authors prepare their documents in, essentially, HTML (well, a restricted >>> profile thereof), and the output is then produced in EPUB, PDF, or pure >>> HTML at the end. Companies are created that do similar things and where >>> small(er) publishers can develop full projects (Metrodigi, Inkling, >>> Hachette, ...; but I do not think it is possible to use these for a big >>> conference, although, who knows?). Importantly to this community, these >>> tools also include annotation facilities, akin to MS Word's commenting >>> tools. >>> >>> Where does it take us _now_? Much against my instinct and with a bleeding >>> heart I have to accept that conferences of the size of WWW, but even ISWC >>> or ESWC, cannot reasonably ask their submitters to submit in ePub (or >>> HTML). Yet. Not today. It is a chicken and egg problem, and change may >>> come only with events, as well as more progressive scholarly publishers, >>> experimenting with this. Just like Daniel (and Bernadette) I would love >>> to see that happening for smaller workshops (if budget allows, I could >>> imagine a workshop teaming up with, say, Metrodigi to produce the >>> workshop's proceedings). But I am optimistic that the change will happen >>> within a foreseeable time and our community (as any scholarly community, >>> I believe) will have to prepare itself for a change in this area. >>> >>> Adding my 2¢ to Daniel's:-) >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> P.S. For LaTeX users: I guess the main advantage of LaTeX is the math >>> part. And this is the saddest story of all: MathML has been around for a >>> long time, and it is, actually, part of ePUB as well, but authoring >>> proper mathematics is the toughest with the tools out there. Sigh... >>> >>> P.S.2 B.t.w., W3C has just started work on Web Annotations. Watch that >>> space... >>> >>> >>> [1] https://atlas.oreilly.com >>> [2] http://metrodigi.com >>> [3] https://www.inkling.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04 Oct 2014, at 04:14 , Daniel Schwabe <dschw...@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote: >>> >>>> As is often the case on the Internet, this discussion gives me a >>>> terrible sense of dejá vu. We've had this discussion many times before. >>>> Some years back the IW3C2 (the steering committee for the WWW >>>> conference series, of which I am part) first tried to require HTML for >>>> the WWW conference paper submissions, then was forced to make it >>>> optional because authors simply refused to write in HTML, and eventually >>>> dropped it because NO ONE (ok, very very few hardy souls) actually sent >>>> in HTML submissions. >>>> Our conclusion at the time was that the tools simply were not there, >>>> and it was too much of a PITA for people to produce HTML instead of >>>> using the text editors they are used to. Things don't seem to have >>>> changed much since. >>>> And this is simply looking at formatting the pages, never mind the >>>> whole issue of actually producing hypertext (ie., turning the article's >>>> text into linked hypertext), beyond the easily automated ones (e.g., >>>> links to authors, references to papers, etc..). Producing good >>>> hypertext, and consuming it, is much harder than writing plain text. And >>>> most authors are not trained in producing this kind of content. Making >>>> this actually "semantic" in some sense is still, in my view, a research >>>> topic, not a routine reality. >>>> Until we have robust tools that make it as easy for authors to write >>>> papers with the advantages afforded by PDF, without its shortcomings, I >>>> do not see this changing. >>>> I would love to see experiments (e.g., certain workshops) to try it out >>>> before making this a requirement for whole conferences. >>>> Bernadette's suggestions are a good step in this direction, although I >>>> suspect it is going to be harder than it looks (again, I'd love to be >>>> proven wrong ;-)). >>>> Just my personal 2c >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:50 - 03/10/14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>> <pfpschnei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In my opinion PDF is currently the clear winner over HTML in both the >>>>> ability to produce readable documents and the ability to display >>>>> readable documents in the way that the author wants them to display. >>>>> In the past I have tried various means to produce good-looking HTML and >>>>> I've always gone back to a setup that produces PDF. If a document is >>>>> available in both HTML and PDF I almost always choose to view it in >>>>> PDF. This is the case even though I have particular preferences in how >>>>> I view documents. >>>>> >>>>> If someone wants to change the format of conference submissions, then >>>>> they are going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me, >>>>> and reviewers, like me. If someone wants to change the format of >>>>> conference papers, then they are going to have to cater to the >>>>> preferences of authors, like me, attendees, like me, and readers, like >>>>> me. >>>>> >>>>> I'm all for *better* methods for preparing, submitting, reviewing, and >>>>> publishing conference (and journal) papers. So go ahead, create one. >>>>> But just saying that HTML is better than PDF in some dimension, even if >>>>> it were true, doesn't mean that HTML is better than PDF for this >>>>> purpose. >>>>> >>>>> So I would say that the semantic web community is saying that there >>>>> are better formats and tools for creating, reviewing, and publishing >>>>> scientific papers than HTML and tools that create and view HTML. If >>>>> there weren't these better ways then an HTML-based solution might be >>>>> tenable, but why use a worse solution when a better one is available? >>>>> >>>>> peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/03/2014 08:02 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are >>>>>> making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage. >>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Daniel Schwabe Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio >>>> Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356 R. M. de S. Vicente, 225 >>>> Fax: +55-21-3527 1530 Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil >>>> http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D >>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > GPG: 0x343F1A3D > WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me > > > > > -- Hugh Glaser 20 Portchester Rise Eastleigh SO50 4QS Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
