HTML 5.2 - W3C Candidate Recommendation and The Publishing Working Group

Today the W3C announced that HTML 5.2 is a W3C Candidate Recommendation. Over the next 4 weeks, the Advisory Committee will review the spec and determine whether they will endorse as a W3C Recommendation.

About HTML 5.2

This specification defines the 5th major version, second minor revision of the core language of the World Wide Web: the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). In this version, new features continue to be introduced to help Web application authors, new elements continue to be introduced based on research into prevailing authoring practices, and special attention continues to be given to defining clear conformance criteria for user agents in an effort to improve interoperability.

HTML in the Wayback Machine

What the W3C website looked like on January 14, 1998 via the Wayback Machine.

What the W3C website looked like on January 14, 1998 via the Wayback Machine.

While reviewing HTML 5.2, it's interesting to remember its origin story. The W3C provides a full history of HTML here but following are a few points of particular interest to the publishing community:

  • Originally, HTML was primarily designed as a language for semantically describing scientific documents.
  • For its first 5 years (1990-1995), HTML went through a number of revisions and experienced a number of extensions, primarily hosted first at CERN, and then at the IETF.
  • In 1998 the W3C membership decided to stop evolving HTML and instead begin work on an XML-based equivalent, called XHTML.
  • In 2003, the publication of XForms, a technology which was positioned as the next generation of Web forms, sparked a renewed interest in evolving HTML itself,
  • The idea that HTML’s evolution should be reopened was tested at a W3C workshop in 2004.
  • In 2006, the W3C indicated an interest to participate in the development of HTML 5.0.

It's a fascinating story and, like all history, important to revisit and understand.

W3C Today and the Publishing Working Group

The W3C website today.

The W3C website today.

In June, the W3C launched the new Publishing Working Group. The first ever W3C Publishing Summit will be held 9-10 November 2017 in San Francisco, California. Evan Owens, VP of Publishing Technologies at Cenveo Publisher Services will be there.

If you'd like to meet with Evan at the W3C Publishing Summit, you can make an appointment by clicking the button below.

 
Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

The Future of EPUB: Facts Regarding the IDPF and W3C Merger

future-of-epub_cenveo-publisher-services

The IDPF and W3C are working to combine the two organizations. Working together, they will strive to foster the global adoption of an open, accessible, interoperable digital publishing ecosystem that enables innovation.  The primary motivation to combine IDPF with W3C is to ensure that EPUB’s future will be well-integrated with, and in the mainstream of, the overall Open Web Platform.

The primary goal is to ensure that EPUB remains free for all to use by evolving future EPUB major version development to W3C's royalty-free patent policy.

The executive director of the IDPF, Bill McCoy, recently published a thoughtful and informative blog on Digital Book World that details why this merger is important to the book industry:

Why the IDPF-W3C Merger Will Be Great for EPUB and the Book Industry [read here]

A committee called "Save the IDPF. Save EPUB." has formed and the group is publicly stating its dissent against the merger. Bill also responded elegantly to the organization's concern on the IDPF website:

IDPF Combining With W3C: the Facts [read here]

Both of these pieces are required reading for anyone in the publishing industry and especially for book publishers. Cenveo Publisher Services is a member and supporter of the IDPF and believes that the EPUB community will be enhanced by the merger with the W3C.

What are your thoughts on the merger and the future of EPUB?

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

SSP Fall Seminar Recap - Mentoring, RFPs, Metadata...These Were Just a Few of Our Favorite Things

This past Tuesday and Wednesday (October 4 to 5), SSP hosted its Fall Seminar at the American Geophysical Union office in DC. The event was organized around three themes with presentations from publishers', vendors', and consultants' perspectives:

  1. Develop Somebody---Even Yourself: Mentorship, Career Development, and Networking
  2. A How to Guide: Successfully Executing an RFP Process
  3. Bagged and Tagged: How the New Scholarly Infrastructure is Connecting People, Places, and Things

Unlike the large SSP Annual Meeting, the Fall Seminar is an intimate gathering of journal managers, publishers, editorial directors, content technology architects, developmental editors, graphic designers, and more. The focus throughout the 2 days was building networks, both professional and organizational, to strengthen yourself and your company. It was evident that the message was taken to heart as everyone involved was open to conversation and making new connections.

The RFP presentation was loaded with tips and best practices but also included thoughts on what NOT to include in an RFP. The participants and the audience shared many pet peeves that translated to a list of great tips related to RFP content and process.

Never miss an opportunity to hear Chuck Koscher from CrossRef speak about standards and metadata. His mission of creating a sustainable infrastructure for scholarly communication is always explained in detail and with passion.

Following is a small sample of information from the past 2 days:

 

Resources for Publishers

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

Seven Facts That Publishers Should Know About DOI

While some academic publishing metadata standards have yet to reach a “tipping point,” others are already well established. The Digital Object Identifier, or DOI, is one of these. 

  1. What is DOI? Administered by the nonprofit International DOI Foundation, these ISO-standard alphanumeric codes serve as “persistent identifiers” for digital content (including abstracts), related objects, and physical assets or files. 
  2. The benefit of a universal DOI: Nearly all journal articles are assigned a unique DOI, which facilitates more efficient management, tracking/searching, and automation by publishing and content management systems. It links to the object permanently, even if it is moved, modified, or updated. It also can contain associated metadata, although the data model requires only a limited set of “kernel” elements.
  3. I’m a publisher, how do I use DOI? Typically, publishers contact the agency, obtain a DOI to be used for all of the articles they publish, and work with the agency to register and use the DOIs created for individual articles. 
  4.  Who allocates the DOI? Various registration agencies manage the DOI records, maintain the metadata databases, and participate in the overall DOI community. For academic publishing, the primary agency is the nonprofit Crossref
  5. What should I know about Crossref? Crossref handles DOIs for preprints (unpublished drafts posted on preprint servers) as well as DOIs for articles accepted in the publication chain (from the initial manuscript submission through the final published article). These are in fact separate identifiers—to distinguish the state of the piece in the publishing process—but are also linked to one another. 
  6. Where will we see growth in DOI adoption? According to April Ondis, Crossref’s Strategic Marketing Manager, “The real growth in DOI adoption will be in the area of preprints and early content registration.”  Driven in part by the growth of Open Access, researchers are increasingly using preprint content to invite informal feedback before the article is formally accepted for peer review and publication. Ondis noted that the DOI for an accepted article is the primary, and permanent one, while the preprint’s DOI is separate but linked.
  7. Are there problems with DOIs? Authors, institutions, and research funders need to know about pending articles as soon as possible. “However, with a DOI there has to be a content URL. At article acceptance, the publisher often does not know where that content will be, so a DOI could not be registered,” said Crossref’s Director of Technology, Chuck Koscher.  The solution? Crossref will now host an ‘intent to publish’ landing page for these DOIs, based on an ‘intent to publish’ field in the metadata supplied by the publisher.

Read more about DOI and other metadata standards in our white paper, "All Things Connected." [click here]

 

Related White Paper

Grab your copy of "All Things Connected" to learn more about DOIs and other metadata standards [click here]


Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

Adapting to Change in Scholarly Publishing: A Full Picture of the History of a Research Work

Crossref Changes its Policy and Will Accept Preprints

In August 2016, Crossref will enable members to assign Crossref DOIs to preprints. This is major news for the scholarly publishing community and an example of how the needs and practices of modern researchers impact change. Previously, Crossref's policy prevented members from registering and assigning DOIs to "duplicative works." However, in the creation and dissemination of scholarly content today, users have a real need to access earlier versions of research papers.

Original content which is intended for formal publication, including content that has been submitted, but has not yet been accepted for publication.
— Definition of "preprint" according to Crossref's Board of Directors

This policy change will require each preprint to link to any future related versions of the work. The preprint DOI will be different from the DOI assigned by the publisher to the accepted manuscript and version of record. Crossref will provide tools to make it easier for members to do that.

Geoffrey Bilder, Director of Strategic Initiatives at Crossref, states "A number of Crossref members are exploring publishing workflows that blur the historically hard distinctions between a draft manuscript, a preprint, a revised proof, an accepted manuscript, the version-of-record, and subsequent corrections and updates, any of which may be used and cited at almost any point in the publishing process."

Ed Pentz, Executive Director at Crossref, explains "Adapting to the needs of our members, while remaining neutral toward their business models, is critical to Crossref's fundamental ability to maintain a clear citation record and let researchers easily identify the best available version of a document or research object."

Business models and real world usage drive change. As scholarly publishing models become more fluid, supporting tools, infrastructure, service providers, and others must also adapt. Crossref anticipates its underlying schema, services, and APIs will be in place by the end of August. 

More information and background on Crossref's history can be enjoyed by clicking here.

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

The ORCID Standard or Why My Journal Needs to Implement Another Metadata Standard

ORCID Adoption is Widespread

Early this year ORCID shared some impressive new metrics

  • nearly two million researchers have registered
  • more than 200 systems have integrated
  • research funders are requiring ORCID iDs at the grant application process

Three publishers have required ORCID iDs for their authors---eLife, PLOS, and The Royal Society. Even more publishers will make this a requirement in the coming months. All great news for the adoption of this important industry standard. As more connections are established between publishers, authors, funders, and service providers the scholarly industry as a whole benefits.

While the tipping point for widespread adoption and integration is nigh there are still many publishers in the planning stages or just unsure where to start. For those organizations, we thought it was time to provide a primer and reinforce the benefits for publishers to adopt the ORCID standard.

ORCID 101

The ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) initiative provides the scholarly community with a dedicated digital identifier that consolidates professional activities, ensuring a comprehensive account of a researcher’s career is maintained and recognized in the publishing community.

Identification

Authors, researchers, grant writers, academics simply register online for an ORCID identification (ID) number. Once assigned, the unique ID provides a consistent and authenticated digital ID of professional activities:

  • a record of all publications
  • ongoing grant submissions and contributions
  • patents obtained and submitted
  • up-to-date affiliations
  • data sharing

The ORCID initiative also provides an open tool kit that allows for the easy transfer of ORCID IDs across modern STM publishing systems. When an author’s manuscript is published, the author’s personal record will be updated with the citation.  In other words, anyone registered with ORCID will have a constantly updated 'digital curriculum vitae.’

What are the Benefits to Publishers?

Universal Identification.  Using ORCID IDs in a publishing workflow allows publishing groups to easily track authors and contributors regardless of name changes or affiliation updates. A comprehensive list of an author’s publishing history provides conflict-of-interest insight during the peer-review process.

Validated Information. The system-to-system nature of the ORCID IDs generates a relationship of mutual trust and accountability while documenting real-time manuscript submissions and approval. Information is shared across manuscript submission systems and publication offices and automatically updated.

Improved Discoverability. ORCID IDs improve the quality of author citations, research works, and reviewer profiles by ensuring information is up to date and consolidated. ORCID provides a central registry that serves as a gateway for publishers and researchers, linking multiple datasets.

Here’s Where We Come in…

Cenveo Publisher Services ensures that publishers’ content is properly tagged to support ORCID IDs.  Capturing and validating the ORCID ID is maintained in Cenveo’s various workflows from article submission through publication. The Cadmus DTD v2.44 is updated to include an element linking back to the ORCID registry:

  <person-id type="orcid">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-0097</person-id>

All scholarly publishers can implement ORCID IDs into a workflow and reap the benefits of a global registry. Want to learn how we can help? Just click here!

 

 

Learn More About ORCID iDs

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72