The original thread started with a post claiming that ACM is hurting its members and I understood your comment to be standing up for the ACM (in this specific way).
Robby On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > The word 'acm' isn't meant literally here. Any body that > classifies things would work. > > And yes, since 2001 good search has replaced most of > classification. But not all. > > > > > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> I think that means "no" actually. The ACM had nothign to do with what >> papers that one choose to cite, nor did they have anything to do with >> google scholar. >> >> (The ACM has something to do with which links appear between papers in >> the digital library, for example.) >> >> Robby >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Stephen Chang <stch...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>> Did Stephen find it because of the ACM somehow? >>> >>> I guess so. It was cited in an acm paper (haskell workshop). I think I >>> found it originally by looking at citations on google scholar, but >>> they probably pulled their information from acm-related papers. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ACM conference also classify your paper so >>>>> that people who look for related work and >>>>> may not have quite the right keywords find >>>>> it anyway. >>>>> >>>>> ;; --- >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday Stephen found a paper on tracing >>>>> in a lazy language that, despite its title, >>>>> and despite claims in the introduction, >>>>> comes awfully close to what John published >>>>> in essence in ESOP '01. >>>>> >>>>> But they wrote it in 98 or so. >>>>> >>>>> Why didn't we find it? The authors published >>>>> in some obscure Australian conference. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So what exactly is the benefit of publishing with ACM these days? Is it >>>>>> just to prove that your paper was peer reviewed? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/30/2011 12:02 PM, John Clements wrote: >>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:07 AM, John Clements wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In case you didn't catch Stephanie Weirich's post of this on >>>>>>>> plus.google.com, here's some very interesting information about ArXiv >>>>>>>> and ACM and where copyrights intersect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It may be that you can avoid much of this by only publishing "draft" >>>>>>>> versions of your paper on ArXiv; I Am Not A Lawyer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh for heaven's sake. Neglected to post the link. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://r6.ca/blog/20110930T012533Z.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >>>>>> >>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________ >>>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >>> > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
