other formats should be accepted, more so in this specific type of conferences. how is the PDF supporting linked data? as far as I know part of the problem is precisely that content is locked up in PDF documents, hardly a case for linked data.
Last year at sepublica we had a smilar discussion. an ontology was submitted, no PDF just the ontology. We decided to accept the ontology as a valid submission. we did request the authors to add some human readable documentation, but in essence our decision was that the ontology as such was a valid submission. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Sarven Capadisli <i...@csarven.ca> wrote: > On 04/23/2013 11:52 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >> >> As an organizer of both this workshop and one called the Beyond the >> PDF force11.org/beyondthepdf2 - I'll respond. >> >> There's nothing particularly wrong with PDF as a means of >> encapsulating human readable information so asking for submissions >> this way seems suitable. (Yes there are downsides to the format and >> maybe we would should be more liberal in terms of formats). pdf also >> has facilities for embedding metadata in rdf. > > > Make is so!? > > What's stopping the conference/workshop organizers from making that change? > Why not the other way around? > > If the organizers request the research work to be submitted using Web native > technologies e.g., (X)HTML, CSS, JavaScript, MathML, SVG, and yes, RDF, what > do you think will happen? > > Make the change and people will follow like they always do. How am I so sure > about that? Because authors want to get their degrees and/or recognized in > the field. So, they'll do what's necessary. > > The point is that, you have some responsibility - pardon me for saying that, > but I can't resist - to ask for the works in Web friendly formats as the > primary format. > > What I imagine will happen is that, in the short term, some people are going > to whine about it because it is not what they are used. Boohoo; computers > are hard. They want to continue writing /paragraph instead of <p> (to put it > in a nutshell). > >> I would hope that the submissions to the workshop are the text around >> lots of links to both source code repositories and linked data >> sources - that's the true test > > > I beg to differ. I think folks are interested in different things. I'm sure > you would agree that there is a lot of value in research analysis for > different parties. For example, I want to write a query to compare the > claims (findings, or results) of different research that's conducted. Among > many insights that one could obtain, gathering statistical data on that > tells me what we are doing, how fast we are going, and where to focus next > etc. How do we do that in PDF again (or from the hacked up RDF metadata > within)? We have the technologies at our disposal, yet, for all intents and > purposes we are going in the opposite direction and making it more difficult > than necessary to do some "Linked Science" and alike. > > Paul, I'm not singling you (or other organizers) out - and like many, I > respect your contributions. We have a recurring issue at hand (at least in > my eyes; as I sound like an old broken record in these mailing lists) in the > Semantic Web / Linked Data community. And, the hold-back is not only from > conferences/workshops. Authors in this community need to take responsibility > and make their contributions by eating their own dogfood (or well, the Web > standards that they buy in to). Supervisors, academia, or funding bodies > should be encouraging the same efforts. That's when we are all on the same > page. > > If you want to make a change, make it so! You don't need anyone's > permission. :) > > -Sarven > -- Alexander Garcia http://www.alexandergarcia.name/ http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
