Petitioning ISWC to allow Web friendly formats

[Sarven Capadisli]

Hi all,

I'd like to invite you to sign the petition "International Semantic Web
Conference: ISWC calls to allow scientific research submission in Web
friendly formats" [1].

For the sake of building towards what we care about, please circulate.

Thanks,

[1]
https://www.change.org/petitions/international-semantic-web-conference-iswc-calls-to-allow-scientific-research-submission-in-web-friendly-formats

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 6 May 2013 13:33, Sarven Capadisli <in...@csarven.ca> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to invite you to sign the petition "International Semantic Web Conference: ISWC calls to allow scientific research submission in Web friendly formats" [1].

For the sake of building towards what we care about, please circulate.

+1 ... I signed

[Leonard Rosenthol]

What format(s) are being used today that are not "web friendly"?

PDF, for example, is a formal and official part of the open web. In fact,
it is a normative reference in the HTML5 specification from the W3C.

Leonard

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 05/06/2013 02:55 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> What format(s) are being used today that are not "web friendly"?
>
> PDF, for example, is a formal and official part of the open web. In fact,
> it is a normative reference in the HTML5 specification from the W3C.

Hi Leonard, thanks for your feedback.

"Web friendly" here refers to native to the Web. For accessing, sharing
and discovering in an ubiquitous matter which benefits not only the user
interacting with it but also the society in general. Given that
generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and friends, because
the potential benefit of HTML (on a web page) is by far greater than
that of a PDF. Proving this is a trivial exercise as we simply have to
look at how information is exchanged today across the globe, and how our
communication has changed drastically (arguably for the better).

Moreover, PDF on the Web is a good "hack". Applications or services that
work within or for the Web browser are all great efforts, however, it is
no where close to how one can access that information directly from a
document in HTML. For a similar comparison, we don't have to look far,
see also: Flash.

At this point, we didn't even speak about additional semantics which go
into an HTML document that improves information representation and
mining, and the uptake (welcoming) of these efforts by major players
that work with or on the Web.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

[Leonard Rosenthol]

On 5/6/13 9:24 AM, "Sarven Capadisli" <in...@csarven.ca> wrote:

>On 05/06/2013 02:55 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>> What format(s) are being used today that are not "web friendly"?
>>
>> PDF, for example, is a formal and official part of the open web. In
>>fact,
>> it is a normative reference in the HTML5 specification from the W3C.
>

>"Web friendly" here refers to native to the Web.

Again, PDF is an official part of the open web - as defined by the W3C.
How much more "native" is there??

>Given that generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and
>friends,

That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's use
creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
something none of us want.

>Proving this is a trivial exercise as we simply have to
>look at how information is exchanged today across the globe, and how our
>communication has changed drastically (arguably for the better).

And that's certainly an excellent endeavor. But you need to be sure to
phrase things in that manner or in ways that properly and accurately
reflect your goals.

If you want to talk about (X)HTML-like formats as a set of formats for
content delivery - that's perfectly reasonable and enables you and others
to focus on the specifics of your desires (and the issues that it also
brings up). But using a term such as "web friendly" says nothing and
only creates confusion.

>Moreover, PDF on the Web is a good "hack". Applications or services that
>work within or for the Web browser are all great efforts,

A web browser is not the only medium for communication of content - in
fact, on mobile devices native application GREATLY TROUNCE the browser for
all common uses.


Leonard

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 05/06/2013 03:33 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> On 5/6/13 9:24 AM, "Sarven Capadisli" <in...@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2013 02:55 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>>> What format(s) are being used today that are not "web friendly"?
>>>
>>> PDF, for example, is a formal and official part of the open web. In
>>> fact,
>>> it is a normative reference in the HTML5 specification from the W3C.
>>
>> "Web friendly" here refers to native to the Web.
>
> Again, PDF is an official part of the open web - as defined by the W3C.
> How much more "native" is there??

I think you are well-aware of what I'm trying to say but I'll clarify.
HTML works better with the rest of the Web architecture than PDF. The
point of using HTML as one of the important blocks is that; it can be
semantically enriched with RDFa, Microdata, or microformats. The same
document can be presented in a variety of ways with CSS for each
consuming device if needed. JavaScript can be used to bring in
additional interaction with the document e.g., one changes the sample
data on the page to see how an algorithm works. A whole suite of
technologies that can work in a variety of ways to represent or mine the
underlying data.

PDF is a standard and also welcomed on the Web. However, it will always
be a second class format where one has to interact with it. There is too
much overhead for consumption. How many browser extensions are there
again to display a PDF in the browser?

That's the nativity of HTML that I'm talking about. Is the contrast clear?

>> Given that generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and
>> friends,
>
> That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
> any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's use
> creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
> something none of us want.

You are right. That is the definition that I chose, but I'm not the only
one. If you will, it is an axiom in order for us to talk about other
things. If we can agree on a more precise axiom, I'm welcome to it. I
sincerely did not intend to cause confusion!

>> Proving this is a trivial exercise as we simply have to
>> look at how information is exchanged today across the globe, and how our
>> communication has changed drastically (arguably for the better).
>
> And that's certainly an excellent endeavor. But you need to be sure to
> phrase things in that manner or in ways that properly and accurately
> reflect your goals.

You are right. I'm trying :)

> If you want to talk about (X)HTML-like formats as a set of formats for
> content delivery - that's perfectly reasonable and enables you and others
> to focus on the specifics of your desires (and the issues that it also
> brings up). But using a term such as "web friendly" says nothing and
> only creates confusion.

I thought my description was self-evident but I surely see that it can
not only cause confusion but be incorrect. I'll work towards clarifying.

The underlying discussion here is that, as researchers working on the
Semantic Web / Linked Data (if you can bare with me on this for the time
being), many, like myself, should have some entitlement to submit their
publicly funded works to conferences that are about the Web technologies.

Again, this is a mere request from conferences to say "we also welcome
HTML and friends for research submissions". If this request is in any
way inappropriate or so far-fetched to making contributions to the field
using our own technologies, I'd love to first know precisely why, and
second, figure out how to work towards it.

No one is trying to stop anyone from submitting their work in PDF. I
would appreciate it if we are not stopped from submitting our work in a
way that plays well with the rest of the Web stack.

Is that reasonable?

-Sarven

[Leonard Rosenthol]

>The underlying discussion here is that, as researchers working on the
>Semantic Web / Linked Data (if you can bare with me on this for the time
>being), many, like myself, should have some entitlement to submit their
>publicly funded works to conferences that are about the Web technologies.
>
>Again, this is a mere request from conferences to say "we also welcome
>HTML and friends for research submissions". If this request is in any
>way inappropriate or so far-fetched to making contributions to the field
>using our own technologies, I'd love to first know precisely why, and
>second, figure out how to work towards it.

No, I think those the EXACT goals you (and the community) should be
focused on.

You want to be pushing the community towards the use of the formats of the
Open Web Platform (<http://www.w3.org/wiki/Open_Web_Platform>) as defined
by the W3C, which includes the technologies that you've listed and more.
It's also something in flux, just as the web itself is.

Just trying to help you focus your goals into something that everyone can
understand and work from.

Leonard

[David Karger]

you don't need an extension; pdf.js will do it in any modern browser.
pdf also supports links and incorporated javascript.
I will grant that HTML is much more "developer-friendly" in its legible
source code, but I'm not sure that's a big enough deal to get excited over.
What may matter a lot more in practice is the fact that HTML doesn't
hard-code a "page" size, so it can reflow to fit different displays. I
suspect that is what will kill pdf in the long run. But again, I don't
know that we have to explicitly fight for it.

[Pascal Christoph]

Am 06.05.2013 15:33 schrieb Leonard Rosenthol :

> On 5/6/13 9:24 AM, "Sarven Capadisli" <in...@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 05/06/2013 02:55 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>>> What format(s) are being used today that are not "web friendly"?
>>>
>>> PDF, for example, is a formal and official part of the open web. In
>>>fact,
>>> it is a normative reference in the HTML5 specification from the W3C.
>>
>>"Web friendly" here refers to native to the Web.
>
> Again, PDF is an official part of the open web - as defined by the W3C.
> How much more "native" is there??

see below

>
>>Given that generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and
>>friends,
>
> That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
> any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's use
> creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
> something none of us want.

In the contrary , these official standard bodys are uninformed and thus is the
normal user. There are many Articles explaining the cons (and pros) of PDF, e.
g [1].

oo

[1]http://www.siamcomm.com/website-design/using-pdf-files-pros-and-cons/

[Leonard Rosenthol]

On 5/6/13 12:03 PM, "Pascal Christoph" <chri...@hbz-nrw.de> wrote:

>>>Given that generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and
>>>friends,
>>
>> That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
>> any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's
>>use
>> creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
>> something none of us want.
>
>In the contrary , these official standard bodys are uninformed and thus
>is the
>normal user.

They are? Can you provide an example of a recognized standards body -
W3C, ISO, ETSI, etc. - or a specific government regulation is that
"uninformed"??

>There are many Articles explaining the cons (and pros) of PDF, e.g [1].
>

>[1]http://www.siamcomm.com/website-design/using-pdf-files-pros-and-cons/

You will notice in the comments on that page that I noted (back in 2009!!)
just TWO features of PDF that the author of the article was UNIFORMED
aboutŠ



Leonard

[Austin William Wright]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lros...@adobe.com> wrote:

On 5/6/13 9:24 AM, "Sarven Capadisli" <in...@csarven.ca> wrote:

That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's use
creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
something none of us want.

Government regulation? If Congress ruled that HTML is the One Superior Format to use, would that make it so? Why hasn't anyone actually discussed the merits of the proposal?

PDF is blatantly not web-friendly. If you're going to use PDF, you may as well use SVG or <font> tags for everything instead. There's very little use you can get out of this, except to ensure that there's a canonical drawing of the text onto a fixed-size sheet of paper. How terribly (not) impressive. Maybe you have a printer that prints pages the same size as the PDF file and you'd like a hard copy, or maybe you want to count pages that you've written. That's about the extent of the functionality that PDF can give users (while the format does support such features as code-on-demand and metadata, this isn't part of what is being asked when PDF is asked for). Otherwise there's not very much use for this format, it is not very portable, contrary to the principles of the Web. What if you want to read the paper on a mobile device, like my e-reader? I take great pains to convert stuff to HTML (specifically, epub) so I can read it (see e.g. <https://github.com/Acubed/rfc-html>).

Being able to view a PDF in a web browser doesn't imply anything. You can use the Web to describe _anything_, so I don't find this argument convincing.

I assume most authors don't actually format their documents by selecting a font size for every single heading and so on. They work in a format that utilizes semantically meaningful information about the work: to identify a title, headings, math blocks, illustrations, plots, etc. Why should all of this information get stripped away for the sake of seeing what it'll look like on paper... I'm not sure, really, what the goal is. If I wanted to see what it'll look like, or get a print copy, I'd navigate over to the "Print" menu option.

While I would find HTML the best because of it's ubiquitous support across devices, even posting TeX sources would be an improvement. And then from that you can offer PDF versions alongside the sources -- but it's not a substitute for the real thing.

The point of HTML is I can grok it on anything: web browsers, robots, e-readers, printing, hyperlinking, etc. With PDF, a ton of semantically useful information is (probably, usually) being discarded.

Austin Wright.

[Steve Pettifer]

> I assume most authors don't actually format their documents by selecting a font size for every single heading and so on.

This is a tempting assumption to make, especially if you come from computer science / maths / physics and related disciplines (as I do). But my experience in the life sciences is that authors do 'paint' their manuscripts by hand, painstakingly selecting the font and format for every bit of their document. Even using the 'semantic' features of wordprocessors (such as 'Heading 1') is something that's not commonplace. So before we get too carried away with expecting people to write HTML / LaTex or even markup, we'll need to take into account the working practises of the vast majority of academics outside of the more 'semantically aware' bits of science.

> They work in a format that utilizes semantically meaningful information about the work: to identify a title, headings, math blocks, illustrations, plots, etc.

No, they really don't. I wish they did. But, outside of a certain area of science, they don't.

Steve

[RebholzSchuhmann]

Hi,

I have seen similar discussions before. 

I guess, we look at two different use cases:
(1) PDF: layout oriented, but could (and will, hopefully) carry a lot more semantics information. The key achievement is and will be to have optimal layout, and on the other side the overhead for processing / exploitation / reuse goes up for everybody who is NOT PDF-savvy.
(2) the other open formats (Html, Xml, Pdf): allow easy-to-go exploitation, processing, and enrichment, and stand for the spirit of the open web and reuse of data.

Listening to publishers, certainly layout matters. I am not only talking about the big five or ten who would have the resources to go a different direction, I am talking about the 1,000 smaller publishers who have to serve their community. They would struggle more to comply with the other "standards" and still deliver an appealing product.

I guess, some clever thinking and collabortive work is required to bring both together.

Hope this helps.

    -drs-

-- 
D. Rebholz-Schuhmann - mailto:d.rebholz...@gmail.com

[Stephen Williams]

Generally, I'd rather have semantically tagged reflowable CSS-enabled XHTML documents, epub like.  However, PDFs serve a useful purpose too, and in some restricted cases it's hard to see how a particular goal can be achieved differently.  An interesting option is to do something like a "Hybrid PDF": store the original editable document and/or alternate forms (XHTML+CSS+semantic markup) in the PDF, automatically and reliably sensing those alternates at any point.  LibreOffice includes this feature now:

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2012/03/the-magic-of-editable-pdfs/index.htm

It's possible, at least to a large extent, to associate particular segments of data to particular rendered elements.  OCR programs make use of this to place resulting text in the same position as the graphic version of the text in a scanned page.  This could allow copy and paste of semantically tagged data from a PDF just like an RDFa web page.

sdw

-- 
Stephen D. Williams s...@lig.net stephend...@gmail.com LinkedIn: http://sdw.st/in
V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407
AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet Resume: http://sdw.st/gres
Personal: http://sdw.st facebook.com/sdwlig twitter.com/scienteer

[Kaveh Bazargan]

May I propose an alternative, to keep things simple. The "version of record" is an XML, say XHTML, edited and saved online. A PDF is generated at any time, on the fly and to the specs of the user, on demand.

Kaveh Bazargan 

Twitter: @kaveh1000
www.river-valley.com | www.river-valley.tv | www.bazargan.org

[Pascal Christoph]

Am 06.05.2013 18:11 schrieb Leonard Rosenthol :

> On 5/6/13 12:03 PM, "Pascal Christoph" <chri...@hbz-nrw.de> wrote:
>
>>>>Given that generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and
>>>>friends,
>>>
>>> That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
>>> any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's
>>>use
>>> creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
>>> something none of us want.
>>
>>In the contrary , these official standard bodys are uninformed and thus
>>is the
>>normal user.
>
> They are? Can you provide an example of a recognized standards body -
> W3C, ISO, ETSI, etc. - or a specific government regulation is that
> "uninformed"??

Any "official standards body, government regulation" that would state that "PDF
is as Web friendly as HTML and friends" is plainly misinforming. It is
Bullshit. PDF is maybe best for printing. It is not good for websites. And not
only because it is not as convenient as HTML and friends to do the things you
want. You would understand if you would program .
Most websites could be of PDFs , but they are (surprise surprise) not. And
thats not because of misinformed users, ideology or the right/wrong believe,
but rather buried in the foundations of the underlying technics.

>>There are many Articles explaining the cons (and pros) of PDF, e.g [1].
>>
>>[1]http://www.siamcomm.com/website-design/using-pdf-files-pros-and-cons/
>
> You will notice in the comments on that page that I noted (back in 2009!!)
> just TWO features of PDF that the author of the article was UNIFORMED
> aboutŠ

yes, but even with your mentioned two features PDF still is not as web
friendly. And considering the PDF feature of "loading the first site" (which is
still not streaming, btw.) being possible than more than 10 years: why is this
not the standard when creating PDFs? Note, even if it were standard, it is
still not stream based. What is with all the unix processing tools? Using PDF
is, at last, harder.
All my statements above are just my own opinion and based on my own experiences
and not necessarily the truth.

pascal

[Leonard Rosenthol]

[I don't want to get into a debate, but I would like to clarify a few
things]

On 5/7/13 5:01 AM, "Pascal Christoph" <chri...@hbz-nrw.de> wrote:
>Any "official standards body, government regulation" that would state
>that "PDF
>is as Web friendly as HTML and friends" is plainly misinforming.

"Web Friendly" is a term that you are making up - it has no normative
definition that anyone (except yourself) can base a discussion on. If you
use the terms that are already defined and in use - Open Web or Open Web
Platform - then PDF is very much a part of that. It meets 100% of the
criteria.

>PDF is maybe best for printing. It is not good for websites.

I don't believe I ever stated that PDF should be used to build a
(complete) website. I agree, that would be stupid. In the same vein, I
wouldn't recommend building an entire site of JPEGs or PNGs, SVG or MathML
- yet all of those are also technologies used as part of the Open Web. PDF
can be used in the same way.

>And considering the PDF feature of "loading the first site" (which is
>still not streaming, btw.) being possible than more than 10 years: why is
>this
>not the standard when creating PDFs?

That's a question you would need to ask the developer/vendor behind the
PDF tools that you've chosen. Adobe's tools, for example, have had that
option turned on (by default) for at least a decade - so every PDF
produced using an Adobe product is "Fast Web Enabled".

>Note, even if it were standard, it is
>still not stream based. What is with all the unix processing tools? Using
>PDF
>is, at last, harder.

As to the streaming point - (X)HTML isn't necessary streamable either.
Depending on how the content is structured, the use of external
references, scripts, etc. it may not be possible to process a given "web
page" entirely in stream. This point is also one of the reasons why HTML
isn't considered a document format, but instead is considered a content
format. Document formats - PDF, ODF, OOXML, EPUB, etc. - all use a
structured storage system that isn't designed to be processed as a stream
in order to enable more complex (and random) access.

Leonard

[Norman Gray]

Greetings.

On 2013 May 7, at 09:32, RebholzSchuhmann wrote:

> I guess, we look at two different use cases

Indeed! Very much so.

I'm loth to re-enter this cluster of threads, which I thought had been beaten to death last week, so forgive me if I derail the thread into a more interesting direction with a radical proposition:

HTML != Web.

Now I'm sure that everyone on this list is now exclaiming in outrage at my insulting suggestion that they don't already know this, but is _is_ odd to see people on the LOD and SW lists still having this argument so very loudly. I've repeatedly double-checked the cc list to confirm that this really is happening.

For me, the really big thing about the LOD and SW movements is that they have repeatedly stressed that there is more to the (data) web than piles and piles of HTML pages (so very Web 2.0). Yes, HTML has advantages (as has been laboriously rehearsed here), but it's not the only game in town.

If this community really wants a 'dog food' exercise, then how about advertising, running, publishing and archiving a LOD/SW conference with NO HTML in sight at all? There could be RDF, txt, PDF, XML with XSL and CSS, RSS, ConNeg, and every other TLA you can think of; but not the FLA. Lots of data formats, each doing the thing they're best at on the Semantic Web of Linked Open Data, together showing that it really is true that HTML != Web.

Now, _that_ would be an interesting dog-food exercise.

All the best,

Norman


--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

[Pascal Christoph]

+1 to all of that (but whats wrong with RDFa in HTML?)
I signed the petition in the first place because it asks to commit documents
also in _other_ formats than solely PDF. That is the main point. (sorry for the
PDF bashing, I think this is a result of beeing pressed by so many institutions
to use this one format).

oo

[Norman Gray]

Pascal, hello.

On 2013 May 7, at 14:30, Pascal Christoph wrote:

>> If this community really wants a 'dog food' exercise, then how about advertising, running, publishing and archiving a LOD/SW conference with NO HTML in sight at all? There could be RDF, txt, PDF, XML with XSL and CSS, RSS, ConNeg, and every other TLA you can think of; but not the FLA. Lots of data formats, each doing the thing they're best at on the Semantic Web of Linked Open Data, together showing that it really is true that HTML != Web.
>>
>> Now, _that_ would be an interesting dog-food exercise.
>
> +1 to all of that (but whats wrong with RDFa in HTML?)

Well, because it's two FLAs, of course, and the dog-fooding is a TLA-only exercise (and before any smart-alecs say anything, 'ConNeg' is two semi-TLAs added together!).^*

Slightly more seriously, HTML+RDFa is a perfectly good format in general, but it's a concession to the idea that HTML somehow has a privileged position on the data web, and that data therefore has to be smuggled alongside it.

Linked Data on the Semantic Web will come of age when we don't have to use a jack-of-all-trades format like HTML for everything, but can instead organise a conference using whichever format (or ConNegged formats) best matches the particular use-case, so that our local devices assemble the result into the display we personally prefer, and it all Just Works.

We're still a long way away from that, I think; no dog-food for us.

All the best,

Norman

----
^* OooooKay: we can allow ourselves JSON and iCal and vCard, too, but not The Tetragrammaton.

[Phillip Lord]

Steve Pettifer <steve.p...@manchester.ac.uk> writes:
> This is a tempting assumption to make, especially if you come from computer
> science / maths / physics and related disciplines (as I do). But my experience
> in the life sciences is that authors do 'paint' their manuscripts by hand,
> painstakingly selecting the font and format for every bit of their document.
> Even using the 'semantic' features of wordprocessors (such as 'Heading 1') is
> something that's not commonplace.

And they never worked anyway, since two pieces of "Heading 1" text could
look complete different. I tried to use the features, but they were
useless for collaborative work as collaboraters never used them.

> So before we get too carried away with expecting people to write HTML
> / LaTex or even markup, we'll need to take into account the working
> practises of the vast majority of academics outside of the more
> 'semantically aware' bits of science.

I think the current idea is not to expect people to write in HTML, but
to stop preventing them.

Phil