What I'd suggest for conference organisers is something like the following:
1. Keep the PDF as the main thing, as it's not going anywhere soon.
3. Also allow submission in some alternative form, including semantic
content, and have the conference run a competition for alternative
publishing forms - including voting by delegates on what they like and
what they want. this could promote such alternative forms and offer a
migration route over time.
Robert.
On 07/10/2014 13:27, Phillip Lord wrote:
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschnei...@gmail.com> writes:
So, you believe that there is an excellent set of tools for preparing,
reviewing, and reading scientific publishing.
Package them up and make them widely available. If they are good, people will
use them.
Convince those who run conferences. If these people are convinced, then they
will allow their use in conferences or maybe even require their use.
Is that not the point of the discussion?
Unfortuantely, we do not know why ISWC and ESWC insist on PDF.
I'm not convinced by what I'm seeing right now, however.
Sure, but at least the discussion has meant that you have looked at some
of the tools again. That's no bad thing.
My question would be, are more convinced than you were last time you
looked or less?
Phil
--
Professor Robert Stevens
Bio-health Informatics Group
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester
United Kingdom
M13 9PL
robert.stev...@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6251
Blog: http://robertdavidstevens.wordpress.com
Web: http://staff.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~stevensr/
KBO
