Nope, I responded to Jon's question.
On Sep 30, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > 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
