Re: [okfn-discuss] Stagnation in community concerns
Rufus, Thanks for the detailed reply. I accept all of your points and this is not about personal issues. I am still concerned about the idea of a selected group and how that works. It's perfectly fine for a select group to devise a proposal or a draft, but not okay for that group's work to just go live without first engaging the larger community. This was a similar problem with the Open Definition. It was a major mistake that the update we in the OD-discuss list approved was then put live and announced to the list as final. The same thing with the tag-line. Essentially, the primary complaint is that no major decisions that affect the whole community should *ever* be finalized by a smaller working group. The smaller group can internally conclude their work, but then it needs to be presented to the community for feedback *before* it is made official. So, my concern is *less* about the inactivity on the tag-line and *more* about the uncomfortable fact that inactivity means the see-how-data tagline by default. Similarly, it's uncomfortable that any inactivity on getting to OD v2.1 means that ODv2 as is stays default. In the case of OD, I find v2 to be all around improvement over earlier anyway, but I just don't like the nature of the internal group's decision jumping into default. Basically, I want the burden to remain on the internal group until the wider community seems generally to consent or at least have fully weighed in on such large community decisions. So, I would like the tagline deleted for now not because everyone agrees that deleting it with no other action is an improvement (although, I'm biased here, I think it would be an improvement) but because I want the group that works on the tagline to have the burden and feel that it is missing right now and something needs to be done. That is better than a situation where those who don't mind the tagline can simply be inactive and it stays. So, indeed, I've made my points about why I don't like the tagline. I'm not alone in my concerns. We don't need to rehash all that here. The main issue is a question of how defaults get into place. I'm suggesting that we, this smaller sub-group did the work should *not* be considered adequate to impose larger-scale defaults over the community. That justification should only apply to things that are specific to the smaller group itself. Respectfully, Aaron On 02/06/2015 02:12 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote: Hi Aaron, Responding inline below. On 5 February 2015 at 21:29, Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net mailto:wolft...@riseup.net wrote: So, See how data can change the world is still an awful tag-line. It has absolutely nothing to do with OK projects like the Public Domain Review. And so on and so on. Also, it was written with a gross lack of First, for my part, I really welcome your continuing commitment to help Open Knowledge get the best outcome here. It is deeply appreciated and it makes a real difference. Given your clear commitment I would like to offer one initial suggestion: that in our discussion we demonstrate (what I assume is) our maximum good faith and assume the commitment of all parties to get the best possible outcome. This also entails using maximum courtesy, especially in email communication which lacks so much of the additional cues available in other forms of human interaction. community input. Today, it remains many months later on the homepage because once you just do something, even poorly and undemocratically, it is done and becomes the default. The burden is now on others to change it. I'd encourage moving away from some conjectured us vs them thing (e.g. burden on others to change it). We all want to work to get the best outcome here and to reach agreement - even that is agreement to an outcome that is not our preferred one but is one that moves the organisation forward effectively. That said, if it is useful to clarify, I shoulder full responsibility for this tagline being there, and any feelings about the rights and wrongs of the process leading to it. At this point, let's move away from the past and focus on what we want to do here to move this forward - more below. Given a dramatic lack of consensus and serious concern about this stuff, I find it troubling that topic was basically discussed just enough that it was drawn out and then died down and no action was taken. This is a great point Aaron and I take full responsibility here as I was the one initiating that conversation and more should have been done to take it to a conclusion (for the sake of context, the inaction from early July onwards was due to the leadup and followup to Open Knowledge Festival - I'm not seeking to excuse not taking this forward, simply to explain this was not an intentional choice but an accidental by-product of other activities). Because it does help inform us going forward, let me
[okfn-discuss] [CfP] Linked Data Quality #LDQ2015 Call for Papers
LDQ 2015 CALL FOR PAPERS 2nd Workshop on Linked Data Quality co-located with ESWC 2015, Portorož, Slovenia June 1, 2015 http://ldq.semanticmultimedia.org/ Important Dates * Submission of research papers: March 6, 2015 * Notification of paper acceptance: April 3, 2015 * Submission of camera-ready papers: April 17, 2015 Since the start of the Linked Open Data (LOD) Cloud, we have seen an unprecedented volume of structured data published on the web, in most cases as RDF and Linked (Open) Data. The integration across this LOD Cloud, however, is hampered by the ‘publish first, refine later’ philosophy. This is due to various quality problems existing in the published data such as incompleteness, inconsistency, incomprehensibility, etc. These problems affect every application domain, be it scientific (e.g., life science, environment), governmental, or industrial applications. We see linked datasets originating from crowdsourced content like Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap such as DBpedia and LinkedGeoData and also from highly curated sources e.g. from the library domain. Quality is defined as “fitness for use”, thus DBpedia currently can be appropriate for a simple end-user application but could never be used in the medical domain for treatment decisions. However, quality is a key to the success of the data web and a major barrier for further industry adoption. Despite the quality in Linked Data being an essential concept, few efforts are currently available to standardize how data quality tracking and assurance should be implemented. Particularly in Linked Data, ensuring data quality is a challenge as it involves a set of autonomously evolving data sources. Additionally, detecting the quality of datasets available and making the information explicit is yet another challenge. This includes the (semi-)automatic identification of problems. Moreover, none of the current approaches uses the assessment to ultimately improve the quality of the underlying dataset. The goal of the Workshop on Linked Data Quality is to raise the awareness of quality issues in Linked Data and to promote approaches to assess, monitor, maintain and improve Linked Data quality. The workshop topics include, but are not limited to: * Concepts * - Quality modeling vocabularies * Quality assessment * - Methodologies * - Frameworks for quality testing and evaluation * - Inconsistency detection * - Tools/Data validators * Quality improvement * - Refinement techniques for Linked Datasets * - Linked Data cleansing * - Error correction * - Tools * Quality of ontologies * Reputation and trustworthiness of web resources * Best practices for Linked Data management * User experience, empirical studies Submission guidelines We seek novel technical research papers in the context of Linked Data Quality with a length of up to 8 pages (long) and 4 pages (short) papers. Papers should be submitted in PDF format. Other supplementary formats (e.g. html) are also accepted but a pdf version is required. Paper submissions must be formatted in the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). Please submit your paper via EasyChair at https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ldq2015. Submissions that do not comply with the formatting of LNCS or that exceed the page limit will be rejected without review. We note that the author list does not need to be anonymized, as we do not have a double-blind review process in place. Submissions will be peer reviewed by three independent reviewers. Accepted papers have to be presented at the workshop. Important Dates All deadlines are, unless otherwise stated, at 23:59 Hawaii time. * Submission of research papers: March 6, 2015 * Notification of paper acceptance: April 3, 2015 * Submission of camera-ready papers: April 17, 2015 * Workshop date: May 31 or June 1, 2015 (half-day) Organizing Committee * Anisa Rula – University of Milano-Bicocca, IT * Amrapali Zaveri – AKSW, University of Leipzig, DE * Magnus Knuth – Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, DE * Dimitris Kontokostas – AKSW, University of Leipzig, DE Program Committee * Maribel Acosta – Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, AIFB, DE * Mathieu d’Aquin – Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK * Volha Bryl – University of Mannheim, DE * Ioannis Chrysakis – ICS FORTH, GR * Jeremy Debattista – University of Bonn, Fraunhofer IAIS, DE * Stefan Dietze – L3S, DE * Suzanne Embury – University of Manchester, UK * Christian Fürber – Information Quality Institute GmbH, DE * Jose Emilio Labra Gayo – University of Oviedo, ES * Markus Graube – Technische Universität Dresden, DE * Maristella Matera – Politecnico di Milano, IT * John McCrae – CITEC, University of Bielefeld, DE * Felix Naumann – Hasso Plattner Institute, DE * Matteo Palmonari – University of Milan-Bicocca, IT * Heiko Paulheim – University of Mannheim, DE * Mariano
Re: [okfn-discuss] Stagnation in community concerns
Hi Aaron, Responding inline below. On 5 February 2015 at 21:29, Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net wrote: So, See how data can change the world is still an awful tag-line. It has absolutely nothing to do with OK projects like the Public Domain Review. And so on and so on. Also, it was written with a gross lack of First, for my part, I really welcome your continuing commitment to help Open Knowledge get the best outcome here. It is deeply appreciated and it makes a real difference. Given your clear commitment I would like to offer one initial suggestion: that in our discussion we demonstrate (what I assume is) our maximum good faith and assume the commitment of all parties to get the best possible outcome. This also entails using maximum courtesy, especially in email communication which lacks so much of the additional cues available in other forms of human interaction. community input. Today, it remains many months later on the homepage because once you just do something, even poorly and undemocratically, it is done and becomes the default. The burden is now on others to change it. I'd encourage moving away from some conjectured us vs them thing (e.g. burden on others to change it). We all want to work to get the best outcome here and to reach agreement - even that is agreement to an outcome that is not our preferred one but is one that moves the organisation forward effectively. That said, if it is useful to clarify, I shoulder full responsibility for this tagline being there, and any feelings about the rights and wrongs of the process leading to it. At this point, let's move away from the past and focus on what we want to do here to move this forward - more below. Given a dramatic lack of consensus and serious concern about this stuff, I find it troubling that topic was basically discussed just enough that it was drawn out and then died down and no action was taken. This is a great point Aaron and I take full responsibility here as I was the one initiating that conversation and more should have been done to take it to a conclusion (for the sake of context, the inaction from early July onwards was due to the leadup and followup to Open Knowledge Festival - I'm not seeking to excuse not taking this forward, simply to explain this was not an intentional choice but an accidental by-product of other activities). Because it does help inform us going forward, let me flag some of the discussion from last June and especially: https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-June/010435.html (and following) https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-June/010450.html (summary of input) https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-June/010480.html It remains the case that anyone who cares about something like the Public Domain Review would look at okfn.org and probably leave. The homepage clearly states that okfn.org is just about big data — which might as well be data relating to tracking everyone's behaviors for all a first look might interpret (rather than data from science and government stats). For my part, there is definitely no intention for this to be about big data (people know my views there!) and that is not how I interpret the front page. I acknowledge there is a greater data focus in the tagline (and perhaps the page overall) but that is not about it being about big data etc. The work on the front page, as emphasized previously, was aiming to present something that is simple, meaningful and understandable to a broader audience outside of those already deeply interested and/or knowledgeable in this area. Trying to encompass everything tends to result in a smorgasbord effect which is neither very understandable of compelling - at least based on expert input and general guerialla user testing. Yada yada yada. This was all discussed. If we can't get consensus on a better tag-line, how about NO tagline? Instead have a brief paragraph describing what the heck OK does actually or who it is? Actually, that stuff seems present if you just scroll down. So just DELETE that whole green useless section from the homepage. Oh, but please add something in the bottom section that covers the sort of cultural stuff that Public Domain Review does, since that's *still* absent (indicating OK's leaning toward disregarding those areas, which I hope isn't going to continue). Acknowledge this clear suggestion - which I appreciate you also made last June (though not with the additional detail). Personally, I do think the vision statement is useful. *However, given neither us are necessarily authorities on this I'd like to get away from debate around our individual opinions and focus on whether there is a suitable, simple process we could adopt here.* *To make a concrete suggestion: we could form a (small) group who were tasked with making a decision here - with the group made of up of some key stakeholders such as representatives of local groups and working groups etc
