- All accepted papers are Open Access under CC-BY. All reviews, meta-reviews, and authors' responses are published under CC-BY too. Papers under review and rejected papers are openly available on our website (but not under CC-BY, as this would heavily limit the authors' possibilities to resubmit the paper somewhere else).
I hope it's OK for you to provide your ORCID as reviewer. I think it's the most reliable identifier for authors. I know that you prefer URLs that you control, like http://csarven.ca/#i, but it is not practical to ask all authors to provide such an identifier (currently, at least), and it doesn't prevent (or disencourage) authors from using different IDs for different papers they write. Author name disambiguation is a big problem with current bibliometric metadata records, and ORCIDs solve this.
@tkuhn I acknowledge the reasons why some people may want to use ORCID, and that's completely fine as that' their decision. Preventing me from using my identifier of choice is a different beast. IMO, that breeds exclusivity (eg case in point appears to be that datasciencehub.net does not welcome me). There is nothing to date that shows that orcid.org is more reliable than csarven.ca. Since csarven.ca predates orcid.org, factually it has a better track record. I wasn't implying that all authors/reviewers should do anything in particular. The question was about what datasciencehub.net welcomes. I acknowledge your answer. Thanks.
As for the rights/licensing, cool that it is "Open Access under CC BY". Am I right to infer that the authors will have copyright of their works, but give non-exclusive rights (CC BY) to the public?
re: AFAICT, at least 8/16 of the ORCID board members https://orcid.org/content/orcid-team are affiliated with for-profit scholarly communication organisations. Not bothering to check staff members.
I believe there are good reasons to assume orcid.org will be much more reliable in the future than URLs like csarven.ca (at the very least for average users, maybe not for your particular one :))
Yes, I think that's right wrt copyright and Open Access. I just asked the publisher about the details.
@tkuhn This just in: https://dokie.li/media/css/iospress.css from @rubensworks :) How to apply:
<link href="https://dokie.li/media/css/iospress.css" media="all" rel="stylesheet alternate" title="IOSPress" /> (or rel="stylesheet" if it is intended to be default)
@tkuhn I forgot to ask you awhile ago, is there a particular stylesheet or view that IOS Press will apply e.g., single or double column? IIRC, stuff that came out of Semantic Web Journal was a double column. Probably differs for each journal/field.. do you know for datasciencehub.net?
Yes, exactly, it's the single-column style shown in https://github.com/vtex-soft/texsupport.iospress-ds
Nice to have more styles! I am not a fan of double-column though... :)
Disclaimer for the special issue at Web Semantics: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2017Aug/0005.html
@tkuhn I'm not sure if a change is needed for your article, but I sense that when it talks about dokieli, there is emphasis on publishing articles in/around Scholarly HTML, like strictly for marking and publishing articles. Also, while the following is true:
The RDFa that is generated automatically under the hood by Dokieli represents, apart from the metadata, just the narrative text paragraphs in RDF literals.
it leaves out other ways in which data can be included (eg Embed Data feature) or referred to (eg notifications and annotations), so that the affordances it puts in place can be used towards broader use. Scholarly HTML draft or potential implementations of it doesn't even touch those things. So, I think dokieli qualifies for the other criteria you have in Table 1.
Also note that, Scholarly HTML is not particularly anymore valid or useful than https://dokie.li/docs . In fact, it describes (if not aims to) more.
Furthermore, there are no "implementations" of Scholarly HTML.
@csarven: Are you saying that dokieli is more than just scholarly HTML? But it is based on HTML and it is about scholarly works, so isn't it about "scholarly HTML" in a general sense? My intention was to use the term in such a general reading, but maybe the link to the w3.org working group gives the impression of a more narrow reading.
I think dokieli is a great method/tool to do genuine semantic publishing, but just by using dokieli and following its guidelines, you don't necessarily end up with a genuine semantic publication. I think we can further clarify this for the next version.
@tkuhn It does "scholarly HTML" in a general sense. Does the general meaning incorporate annotations, notifications, making use of profiles, inboxes/storage, .. interactions and so on? If not, then yes I do think that it goes beyond "scholarly HTML".
Right, referring to the CG or the prior use of "scholarly HTML" has a specific scope or at least what's widely known/used for. That's exactly what I meant to highlight here.
Right, referring to the CG or the prior use of "scholarly HTML" has a specific scope or at least what's widely known/used for. That's exactly what I meant to highlight here.
If the focus is really on HTML, then sure, dokieli checks that box. Most applications/services out there that touch on HTML would qualify in that sense.
I would personally rather not confine scholarly stuff to just HTML however. dokieli has a broader coverage on how some parts of scholarly communication can be. It is not restricted to just publishing (putting a file on a server).
I understand that you are approaching this from the publishing end.
BTW on Scholarly HTML, we just finished review on @essepuntato's PeerJ paper on RASH - it includes a list of the three different "scholarly HTML". https://w3id.org/people/essepuntato/papers/rash-peerj2016.html
@stain @essepuntato Is RASH (specification?) a fork of https://w3c.github.io/scholarly-html/ (specification?). Would a document using the rules of the CG's (specification?) pass RASH's validator?
@essepuntato If that article will have future versions, note that there is https://dokie.li/docs now for documentation.
Hi @csarven. RASH is not a fork of https://w3c.github.io/scholarly-html/ since it has been proposed before indeed. As far as I know, the CG Scholarly HTML has not a formal grammar, thus it would be difficult to check if a RASH document is compliant with CG’s Scholarly HTML. In addition, the CG's spec is still rather generic and incomplete. However, it seems there is at least one specific feature that makes RASH different from CG's, that is the use of h1-h6 headings - that are used in CG’s spec, while in RASH you can use only “h1” and the importance of a header is specified implicitly by the particular nesting hierarchy of the section it is contained in. About future versions of the PeerJ RASH article, this was already a revision of a previous submission, thus, as far as I know, it seems we are directly going to the proof of the article at this stage. If I can modify the content so as to reflect the fact that dokie.li now has the documentation, I’ll surely do it.
@csarven, a quick question: I confess I didn’t dig a lot in dokieli sources, but do you think there is a feasible path for allowing dokieli to read/write RASH documents - i.e. by following strictly the RASH spec?
Is there a particular use case for dokieli to have a specialised handling for RASH or other HTML profiles in general?
@essepuntato Go to https://dokie.li/ . Click on the menu (top right) -> Open -> input
https://essepuntato.github.io/papers/rash-peerj2016.html into URL field -> Open.
@ashrafaboulnaga You can also do that or import a local file using 'Browse' instead.
Hmm, will move this to dokieli chat.
That works from any dokieli article in fact.. eg https://linkedresearch.org/annotation/www.tkuhn.org/pub/sempub/sempub.dokieli.html/index.html
Exporting to nonWeb formats is mostly out of scope for core. But once there is an extension mechanism, that could be possible