Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@VladimirAlexiev Thanks for the trigger. Created linkeddata/dokieli#110 - Feel free to expand.
A structure is not imposed yet when you create a new document, and that's because #110 is missing. This will also minimize HTML errors (because really don't want people to handcode anything ..), and contribute towards interoperable documents (e.g., the triples in RDFa will come out out of the box since it is just going through the template).
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Added a highly anticipated feature: reading time. Click on the menu at the top right.. it is under Document Metadata. It is based on 200 WPM average reading time.
I suppose reading time can be used in #110
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
oh sweet!
Newton Calegari
@newtoncalegari
:+1:
We wrote an "academic" article on dokieli and submitted to WWW LDOW. It was rejected - the anonymous reviews are up on the site. Feedback most welcome., and we hope that it helps to understand what we have working and have also in plans.
Stian Soiland-Reyes
@stain
Did the reviewers put the review there themselves, or you pasted those in?
Stian Soiland-Reyes
@stain

I must admit I agree with the meta-review, I think the reviews are fair in that the article reads more like an Application Note or technical report, and would benefit from a stronger evaluation and justification of its novelty.

I don't think details like the flow diagrams are needed, also the pretty publishing mode pictures feel out of place . The technical work seems sound and very promising - this kind of move towards collaborative and distributed easy-to-use semantic publishing is exactly what is needed to revive academic publication for the 21st century.

I would have appreciated a stronger focus on provenance and attribution, e.g. FOAF is mentioned - strong identification of authors should be even more important in a distributed model, so I would have expected some relation to ORCID - which RDF representations provides FOAF and PROV descriptions of people (and currently planning integration with SPAR ontologies).

Similarly versioning is not mentioned, and a dokieli paper that is published online in a distributed manner (possibly even at multiple locations) and subject to collaborative editing would naturally have many different versions (e.g. pav:hasVersion), which could make it hard to cite which version has actually been reviewed, published, updated, etc.

It would also be important to relate these versions to each-other so you could know when to talk about the "same paper" in a more abstract sense, as with prov:specializationOf or SPAR FaBiO's use of FRBR relations between Work/Expression/Manifestation/Entry - this would particularly become relevant when a dokieli paper is accepted by a more traditional publisher which assign it's own DOIs and republishes the text (the Expression) in a slightly different Manifestation (probably breaking most of the RDFa links) at a different Entry (new URL).

One strong argument for semantic scholarly publication is that you have the possibility to break down the strong barrier between the article text and the traditional supplementary material, as you gain the possibility of a closer integration of data and visualizations from within the dokieli article - as the author has previously shown. One big challenge here is that the boundary of the article becomes blurred - some kind of aggregation of resources that constitute the article in the form of a research object or similar would help to mark out what is the scholarly unit that is actually being proposed for review, publication and citation - and also to help attribution-wise as you can break down what authors contributed where.

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@stain Thank you for your review!
Will definitely incorporate your suggestions in the next version.
Stian Soiland-Reyes
@stain
aha! Version! :)
dokieli is cool stuff - don't get me wrong!
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@stain http://csarven.ca/dokieli#provenance under next-steps mentions some of the future work. I agree that it is super important and desired.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
It is now possible for users to assign any one of the Creative Commons licenses to the annotations.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
nice!!
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
The user-interface currently defaults to the "CC BY" (Attribution) selection. I can be convinced to change the default to CC0 or CC BY-SA.
I'd like dokieli to encourage reuse / free-content, so, prefer not to default to BY-NC, BY-ND, BY-NC-SA, or BY-NC-ND.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
:)
Alvaro Graves
@alangrafu
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
403 - oh noes, access denied!
Alvaro Graves
@alangrafu
In general I really like the direction Dokieli is heading to, keep the great work! Now we need to make workshops and conference to accept submissions in this or similar forms.
@melvincarvalho sorry, fixed!
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
I see it thanks! :)

For example, it is not clear to me that non-SemWeb researchers are interested in adding RDFa annotations. If that is true (and this is just an hypothesis), how can we encourage them

FYI: im a sem web developer, but not researcher, and I used this system to add RDFa before, just a data point ...

nice review tho
i think in general there is a clash of worlds, the old print style linear methodology that's been in place 100s of years, and a new non linear system that is relatively new
Alvaro Graves
@alangrafu
@melvincarvalho You are right, I should rephrase it as non-SemWeb people. Will change it, still a hypothesis though.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
I asked a friend of mine who is a researcher if he'd use dokielie, he liked the idea, but said he was used to using Word
and couldnt see any immediate advantage
he's a different field, psychology
quite an interesting quote from this article: '"One of the things about digital information is that it's not fundamentally human-readable," he explains. "You need some kind of technology to turn it into something understandable."
Alvaro Graves
@alangrafu
I've heard the same (or similar explanations) from researchers in chemical engineering, physics and even open government.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
i just added a gamification system to one of my apps, maybe adding some kind of points / credits / incentives could encourage usage, I dont know ...
@alangrafu what are your first impressions of Solid?
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
Alvaro Graves
@alangrafu
@melvincarvalho I cannot tell, I haven't looked at it in detail
@melvincarvalho I made it, in 2010 I think :-)
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
wow, still cool
Alvaro Graves
@alangrafu
thanks!
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
starred it :) solid is like a file system on the web for data
but with nice features such as access control and realtime updates
imho how the web should have been in the first place, as a read write space, for both documents and data
hopefully dokeili will be like google docs built on top of it
ie not only for researchers
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@alangrafu Thank you for your feedback! Very useful. I will try to address/incorporate the points you've raised. A quick response on versioning: this is quite a desirable feature and some of the workload will hopefully be handled by Solid. We have an issue for this in the dokieli repository already. And, mentioned provenance in the article (see the next-steps). @stain also raised this point, so I guess we were not clear about that. The revision of this article will try to discuss that better. The revision will also include an evaluation and some user testing as well.
@alangrafu I've noticed that your review is like a stand-alone article, which is great! And, I can see that you didn't use the annotation feature that's built in. The annotation is currently on a block-level i.e., you highlight some text and respond to that. We'll have the mechanism very soon to have 'reply to' the whole document - same process as the regular annotation, but there will be the UI to basically let you click on a button to reply to the whole document.
The RDFa annotation is quite preliminary at the moment IMO. We are carving that out as we go. Need to arrive at a balance between how much one can express and not to overwhelm the user. Perhaps a simple/advance view of it.. open to the ideas on this. There is a github issue already.