Hey @bonfire @mayel and crew, if you ever feel like putting a spec down to attach academic citations to #ActivityPub objects for your Open Science Network, ping me.
-
ah based on that example we may be talking about different things, so far we've been thinking more of how you would federate and preview the metadata of https://fietkau.science/content_interaction_public_displays (assuming it is a publication or any kind of research object) rather than how you'd federate all the references if that text was published directly on the fediverse... which could be done different but also it could be app to the UI to decide if/how to use/display the link metadata
@bonfire Right – with OSN you're also thinking about academic creation, not only sharing? So letting authors declaratively cite specific sources in their posts could be good, as would searching/filtering for “what else cites this”.
Although tbh, my motivation for now is interop between Encyclia and OSN.
I want Bonfire to recognize Encyclia posts as what they are (automated metadata summaries of specific academic works) and separate those from human discussions. -
@bonfire @julian @mayel @jonny
At least I will state my interest from the perspective of custodian of Social coding commons movement, which has an ambition that open science becomes seamlessly embedded within the commons with lowest barriers to free knowledge transfer towards broader society and back.
The chaordic organization formula that I am pondering allows for pillars to be created around specific themes, to help make them strategically and organically grow over time. Like Open Science.
@bonfire @julian @mayel @jonny
Oh, I should also mention that I intend to port and reboot https://fedi.foundation which I can also offer as a place where ScienceFed can inform the public about its work.
This site is intended to be a multi-author publishing service for participants in Social coding commons, specifically around themes of applied research for the social web of tomorrow.
-
@bonfire @julian @mayel @jonny
Oh, I should also mention that I intend to port and reboot https://fedi.foundation which I can also offer as a place where ScienceFed can inform the public about its work.
This site is intended to be a multi-author publishing service for participants in Social coding commons, specifically around themes of applied research for the social web of tomorrow.
@smallcircles @julian @mayel @jonny does it federate?
-
@bonfire Right – with OSN you're also thinking about academic creation, not only sharing? So letting authors declaratively cite specific sources in their posts could be good, as would searching/filtering for “what else cites this”.
Although tbh, my motivation for now is interop between Encyclia and OSN.
I want Bonfire to recognize Encyclia posts as what they are (automated metadata summaries of specific academic works) and separate those from human discussions.That should be easy enough to get working as-is to begin with, and we can then progressively enhance with schemas?
-
@julian @bonfire @mayel @jonny
With #OpenScience we talk of an entire field that has a lot to fight for, given all that's wrong around academic publishing processes and the strangehold of commercial parties.
Also a field full of people who might design/deliver rock-solid robust & *interoperable* open standard specifications.
There's ample opportunity to start something like ForgeFed, a dedicated protocol extension spec. Working name: #ScienceFed and it can be homed at https://codeberg.org/fediverse
@smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel @jonny
for illustrative examples, see https://linkedresearch.org/calls#contributions-and-review and https://csarven.ca/linked-data-notifications
go ahead, inspect the html, try to fetch it as json-ld, the works
-
@smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel @jonny
for illustrative examples, see https://linkedresearch.org/calls#contributions-and-review and https://csarven.ca/linked-data-notifications
go ahead, inspect the html, try to fetch it as json-ld, the works
@trwnh
@smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel
Ya ya. Adding LD to documents is easy. Making use of it at scale is hard. -
@trwnh
@smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel
Ya ya. Adding LD to documents is easy. Making use of it at scale is hard.@jonny @smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel i am finding that the challenge isn't so much "making use of it as scale" as it is specifically "being understood at scale". it's a problem that we have even with natural language. you have the capability to make use of information that you understand, but it's the understanding that's the hard part. and also discovering that information in the first place, and being able to find it when you need it. compared to that, use cases are straightforward.
-
@jonny @smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel i am finding that the challenge isn't so much "making use of it as scale" as it is specifically "being understood at scale". it's a problem that we have even with natural language. you have the capability to make use of information that you understand, but it's the understanding that's the hard part. and also discovering that information in the first place, and being able to find it when you need it. compared to that, use cases are straightforward.
@trwnh
@smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel
I think basically we are saying the same thing because understanding is a prerequisite to use for me so yes, agreed. -
@trwnh
@smallcircles @julian @bonfire @mayel
I think basically we are saying the same thing because understanding is a prerequisite to use for me so yes, agreed.@trwnh
As a side note, I think RDFa is a great idea, I tried to use it in a document and make a markdown preprocessor to be able to use it with semantic mediawiki-style wikilinks[[predicate::object|display text]]where the document is the implicit subject, or[[subject::predicate::object]]and have those render out asaelements with RDFa. But then I learned thatrdflibhad dropped support and there weren't any actively developed parsers, so I gave up because I wasn't gonna write one and what's the point in writing something that can't be parsed easily. -
@trwnh
As a side note, I think RDFa is a great idea, I tried to use it in a document and make a markdown preprocessor to be able to use it with semantic mediawiki-style wikilinks[[predicate::object|display text]]where the document is the implicit subject, or[[subject::predicate::object]]and have those render out asaelements with RDFa. But then I learned thatrdflibhad dropped support and there weren't any actively developed parsers, so I gave up because I wasn't gonna write one and what's the point in writing something that can't be parsed easily.@jonny depending on how things go, i might end up writing one for myself if i decide i want to use html as a canonical content format which gets converted into other serializations. i'm not particularly enamored with markdown as a canonical content format (although i recognize why many people like it) so i don't know how much energy to devote to markdown extensions if i won't end up using them
but i still have research to do re: content modeling and management...
-
@jonny depending on how things go, i might end up writing one for myself if i decide i want to use html as a canonical content format which gets converted into other serializations. i'm not particularly enamored with markdown as a canonical content format (although i recognize why many people like it) so i don't know how much energy to devote to markdown extensions if i won't end up using them
but i still have research to do re: content modeling and management...
@jonny one thing that seems potentially promising with markdown is to try to put the data in frontmatter instead of content? then when you parse frontmatter as toml/yaml/json you can basically take the json and make it json-ld by adding a context depending on the "type" of content it represents. imagine something like hugo and mapping the default frontmatter attributes to some vocabulary... then establishing equivalences as needed
-
@jonny depending on how things go, i might end up writing one for myself if i decide i want to use html as a canonical content format which gets converted into other serializations. i'm not particularly enamored with markdown as a canonical content format (although i recognize why many people like it) so i don't know how much energy to devote to markdown extensions if i won't end up using them
but i still have research to do re: content modeling and management...
@trwnh
Hey if you can write HTML, then dont bother with markup formats. I write code for scientists and if I were to ask a scientist to write their document in HTML they would just be like "no" and "never" lol -
@jonny one thing that seems potentially promising with markdown is to try to put the data in frontmatter instead of content? then when you parse frontmatter as toml/yaml/json you can basically take the json and make it json-ld by adding a context depending on the "type" of content it represents. imagine something like hugo and mapping the default frontmatter attributes to some vocabulary... then establishing equivalences as needed
@trwnh
There is a Jekyll plugin that does this, but one of the things I wanted with RDFa is to be able to annotate the text within the document as well as the whole document. Its a shame it seems to be quietly being deprecated -
@trwnh
There is a Jekyll plugin that does this, but one of the things I wanted with RDFa is to be able to annotate the text within the document as well as the whole document. Its a shame it seems to be quietly being deprecated@jonny @trwnh If you’re interested in a critical history of RDFa: https://aeshin.org/static/pubs/Shaw%20-%202022%20-%20A%20Dispute%20over%20Embedding%20Linked%20Data%20in%20Web%20Pages.c90822e73bae.pdf
-
@trwnh
There is a Jekyll plugin that does this, but one of the things I wanted with RDFa is to be able to annotate the text within the document as well as the whole document. Its a shame it seems to be quietly being deprecated@jonny yeah rdfa is mostly stuck in 2013, it never really got fully ironed out because most people already preferred turtle or the new hotness of jsonld. it's a shame because it does have some advantages that the other formats lack (namely, you can markup text *and* make some of that markup extra-semantic, write once instead of having to maintain two separate things and risk them getting out of sync
-
@jonny @trwnh If you’re interested in a critical history of RDFa: https://aeshin.org/static/pubs/Shaw%20-%202022%20-%20A%20Dispute%20over%20Embedding%20Linked%20Data%20in%20Web%20Pages.c90822e73bae.pdf
-
-
@jonny @rieyin ok whew that was a meaty read... i have a lot of notes i took that aren't suited for the mastodon format but i can say that while this is a very good paper and it helped put into words a lot of things that have been brewing in my mind for a long time, it doesn't address what happened *after* the rdfa debate at whatwg and the introduction of microdata, schema.org, open graph protocol. there's probably more at play if you consider this later time period (2010-2013??)
-
@jonny @rieyin ok whew that was a meaty read... i have a lot of notes i took that aren't suited for the mastodon format but i can say that while this is a very good paper and it helped put into words a lot of things that have been brewing in my mind for a long time, it doesn't address what happened *after* the rdfa debate at whatwg and the introduction of microdata, schema.org, open graph protocol. there's probably more at play if you consider this later time period (2010-2013??)
-
@jonny @rieyin ok whew that was a meaty read... i have a lot of notes i took that aren't suited for the mastodon format but i can say that while this is a very good paper and it helped put into words a lot of things that have been brewing in my mind for a long time, it doesn't address what happened *after* the rdfa debate at whatwg and the introduction of microdata, schema.org, open graph protocol. there's probably more at play if you consider this later time period (2010-2013??)
