Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 3 Oct 2014 16:06, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org writes: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. In my area, the majority of journals aren't printed; I've thrown away conference proceedings the last decade anyway. Protocols and formats, yes, true a problem. I think in an argument between HTML and PDF, then it's hard to see one has the advantage over another. My experience is that HTML is easier to extract text from, which is always going to be base line. For what it is worth, there are achiving solutions, including archive.org and arxiv.org both of which leap to mind. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Also in this brave new world, how would the length of a submission be determined? Alasdair As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage. I work towards a network of actionable data just like the rest of you so I don't want to discourage this conversation; I just want to focus it. Okay. I would like to know who made the decision that HTML is not acceptable and why. Phil - We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply. Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 07/10/2014 14:33, Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk wrote: On 3 Oct 2014 16:06, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org writes: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. In my area, the majority of journals aren't printed; I've thrown away conference proceedings the last decade anyway. Protocols and formats, yes, true a problem. I think in an argument between HTML and PDF, then it's hard to see one has the advantage over another. My experience is that HTML is easier to extract text from, which is always going to be base line. For what it is worth, there are achiving solutions, including archive.org and arxiv.org both of which leap to mind. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Also in this brave new world, how would the length of a submission be determined? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/word-count-tool/ https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/word-count/pnngehidikgomgfjbpffon keimgbpjlh?hl=en https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/word-counter-for-opera/?disp lay=en Michael Alasdair As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage. I work towards a network of actionable data just like the rest of you so I don't want to discourage this conversation; I just want to focus it. Okay. I would like to know who made the decision that HTML is not acceptable and why. Phil We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply. Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Again, I'd like to know for sure. Also in this brave new world, how would the length of a submission be determined? There are lots of alternative measures. Word limits would work. Page based limits are pretty daft anyway. I am sure that you, like I, have do some strange \baselineskip fiddling or shrunk a figure to 99, then 98, then 97% until it finally fits, although it isn't entirely visible any more. Word-limits avoid this. For myself, I would drop word limits as well, and specify a reading time of around 30 minutes. I have certainly gone through papers in the past and made them less readable so that they fit within the page limit. Ever removed all your adjectives? What about replacing conjunctions with punctuation? If the reviewers get bored ploughing through an overly long paper, they just send a review with tl;dr. One of the interesting thing about innovating with the publication process is that it helps to find out what about a scientific paper we actually care about and what are just hang overs from our past. Phil
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 7 Oct 2014, at 15:31, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukmailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Again, I'd like to know for sure. For ISWC this year, it was certainly the case that I needed to submit the latex for the camera ready version. This presumably is for Springer/conference organisers to be able to get all the appropriate metadata that they add for indexing. Also in this brave new world, how would the length of a submission be determined? There are lots of alternative measures. Word limits would work. Page based limits are pretty daft anyway. I am sure that you, like I, have do some strange \baselineskip fiddling or shrunk a figure to 99, then 98, then 97% until it finally fits, although it isn't entirely visible any more. Word-limits avoid this. For myself, I would drop word limits as well, and specify a reading time of around 30 minutes. I have certainly gone through papers in the past and made them less readable so that they fit within the page limit. Ever removed all your adjectives? What about replacing conjunctions with punctuation? If the reviewers get bored ploughing through an overly long paper, they just send a review with tl;dr. We should certainly be doing what we can to make the message of our papers more accessible for future researchers. Remember that reviewers are no different from other researchers, although they do have the task of witnessing that the contribution of the paper is accurate. To this end, we should be making use of technology that enables the papers to be read in the readers preferred format, without losing the meaning intended by the author. Grappling around with page limits is a complete waste of time, particularly with all the tricks that authors use to trick they system. Alasdair One of the interesting thing about innovating with the publication process is that it helps to find out what about a scientific paper we actually care about and what are just hang overs from our past. Phil Alasdair J G Gray Lecturer in Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK. Email: a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk Web: http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-5711-4872 Telephone: +44 131 451 3429 Twitter: @gray_alasdair - We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply. Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk wrote: On 7 Oct 2014, at 15:31, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Again, I'd like to know for sure. For ISWC this year, it was certainly the case that I needed to submit the latex for the camera ready version. This has been the case for quite a few years now. This presumably is for Springer/conference organisers to be able to get all the appropriate metadata that they add for indexing. Yes, they make sure that references to other publications in their volumes are in good shape (i.e. they actually fix them), they add copyrights, page numbering, running titles, and so on. I imagine all of this gets harder when the number of alternative submission formats increases. But Springer aside, I remember perfectly well how much work I had to do as the PC/proceedings editor for a (fairly small, ~30 camera-ready papers) conference before submitting the volume to Springer. I nearly killed myself fixing crippled sources in LaTeX and Word (i.e. fixing the presentation infelicities and failures to conform to the template). Dealing with two formats was bad enough and the thought of another, alternative one -- no matter how Webby it is or how much I like it personally -- would make me want to die. And there's no reason to believe that presentation in HTML would be any better than in latex/word. So, while I see the sense in dogfooding in this case (and I also understand why people want Webby formats for papers), I'm be a bit concerned about the arguments like just let me use my fav't Web format and keep using PDF for yourself. They may underestimate the efforts that someone else needs to invest to turn submissions, even camera-readies, into publishable material. Anyways, my two cents, Pavel Also in this brave new world, how would the length of a submission be determined? There are lots of alternative measures. Word limits would work. Page based limits are pretty daft anyway. I am sure that you, like I, have do some strange \baselineskip fiddling or shrunk a figure to 99, then 98, then 97% until it finally fits, although it isn't entirely visible any more. Word-limits avoid this. For myself, I would drop word limits as well, and specify a reading time of around 30 minutes. I have certainly gone through papers in the past and made them less readable so that they fit within the page limit. Ever removed all your adjectives? What about replacing conjunctions with punctuation? If the reviewers get bored ploughing through an overly long paper, they just send a review with tl;dr. We should certainly be doing what we can to make the message of our papers more accessible for future researchers. Remember that reviewers are no different from other researchers, although they do have the task of witnessing that the contribution of the paper is accurate. To this end, we should be making use of technology that enables the papers to be read in the readers preferred format, without losing the meaning intended by the author. Grappling around with page limits is a complete waste of time, particularly with all the tricks that authors use to trick they system. Alasdair One of the interesting thing about innovating with the publication process is that it helps to find out what about a scientific paper we actually care about and what are just hang overs from our past. Phil Alasdair J G Gray Lecturer in Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK. Email: a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk Web: http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-5711-4872 Telephone: +44 131 451 3429 Twitter: @gray_alasdair We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply. Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: On 7 Oct 2014, at 15:31, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukmailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Again, I'd like to know for sure. For ISWC this year, it was certainly the case that I needed to submit the latex for the camera ready version. This presumably is for Springer/conference organisers to be able to get all the appropriate metadata that they add for indexing. Sorry, I meant, I'd love to know for sure where the restriction on PDF comes from. Could we change it to allow HTML tomorrow and who would complain. We have seen some people already (Peter!), but I'd like to know where the limiting factor is. Phil
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 7 Oct 2014, at 16:20, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukmailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: On 7 Oct 2014, at 15:31, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukmailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukmailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Gray, Alasdair a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk writes: This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file (s) - latex or word - are required. Again, I'd like to know for sure. For ISWC this year, it was certainly the case that I needed to submit the latex for the camera ready version. This presumably is for Springer/conference organisers to be able to get all the appropriate metadata that they add for indexing. Sorry, I meant, I'd love to know for sure where the restriction on PDF comes from. Could we change it to allow HTML tomorrow and who would complain. The limitation is not Easychair. They allow you to have all of the following file formats [audio/video] extension file type pdf PDF ps postscript doc Word document docxWord open XML document odt Open Document format txt plain text zip zip jpg JPEG tar tarball tgz gzipped tarball gz gzipped file htmlHTML xls Excel file tex LaTeX file ppt PowerPoint presentation pptxMicrosoft PowerPoint open XML document ✔ mp3 MP3 audio file ✔ mp4 MP4 audio file ✔ wav WAVE audio file ✔ avi Audio video interleave file ✔ mpg MPEG video file ✔ mov Apple QuickTime Movie ✔ wmv Windows media video file nb Mathematica notebook m Mathematica package mx Mathematica binary package cdf Computable Document format file So it would seem it is just convention. Alasdair We have seen some people already (Peter!), but I'd like to know where the limiting factor is. Phil Alasdair J G Gray Lecturer in Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK. Email: a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.ukmailto:a.j.g.g...@hw.ac.uk Web: http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-5711-4872 Telephone: +44 131 451 3429 Twitter: @gray_alasdair - We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply. Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 2014-10-02 13:50, John Domingue wrote: As well as being irritating, UK academics submitting to ESWC run the risk that their papers will not be open to REF submission; even if they are, we have to go to additional efforts to ensure they are green OA published. This is also true of ISWC which makes the semantic web a pretty unattractive area to do research in. for both ISWC and ESWC the PDFs are freely available e.g. see [1] John [1] http://2014.eswc-conferences.org/program/accepted-papers It is great that some agreements between the conferences and the publishers allow open access e.g., [1]. However, lets not forget that: 1) a good chunk of publicly funded research is produced and reviewed for free, meanwhile: 2) the public still ends up paying for the research submissions i.e., institutions pay their fees to subscribe to the periodicals from the publisher. So, not only are we working for free, we are paying again for the research that we've produced. And all meanwhile, insisting on making it easier and preferable by the publisher. Having said that, there is no need to pile on the publisher. After all, they have a business and the intuitions are willing to pay for their services and products. That's okay. Many in the SW field are interested in discovering the research output at great precision, without having to go through the publisher, or having to use a common search engine to look for keywords endlessly for something mildly relevant. We are all in fact working towards that universal access of information - I think TimBL said a few things on that silly little topic. IMO, this is where it comes apparent that the level of openness that's offered by the publisher is superficial and archaic. The SW community can do much better by removing the unnecessary controls that are in place to control the flow of information. This is whereabouts we should wake up. :) -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
Dear Sarven, I guess that all people belonging the semantic web community have been enriched from this discussion. I'm sure that there are a lot of aspect about how ideas, material, research outcomes, etc. can been shared and disseminate through all the world. However, my personal (very personal) feeling is that the next edition of ESWC will not be able to solve everything... and with this, I don't want to discredit the huge amount of work that all the organization committee is doing. So, I would invite you to collect all the things that you don't consider fair, and to apply them when you will sit on your desk for organizing your conference. Anyway, if you don't want to do this, please at least remove my address from the discussion, because I'm not interested in continuing reading it. Thanks and have a nice day. Mauro. On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Sarven Capadisli i...@csarven.ca wrote: On 2014-10-02 13:50, John Domingue wrote: As well as being irritating, UK academics submitting to ESWC run the risk that their papers will not be open to REF submission; even if they are, we have to go to additional efforts to ensure they are green OA published. This is also true of ISWC which makes the semantic web a pretty unattractive area to do research in. for both ISWC and ESWC the PDFs are freely available e.g. see [1] John [1] http://2014.eswc-conferences.org/program/accepted-papers It is great that some agreements between the conferences and the publishers allow open access e.g., [1]. However, lets not forget that: 1) a good chunk of publicly funded research is produced and reviewed for free, meanwhile: 2) the public still ends up paying for the research submissions i.e., institutions pay their fees to subscribe to the periodicals from the publisher. So, not only are we working for free, we are paying again for the research that we've produced. And all meanwhile, insisting on making it easier and preferable by the publisher. Having said that, there is no need to pile on the publisher. After all, they have a business and the intuitions are willing to pay for their services and products. That's okay. Many in the SW field are interested in discovering the research output at great precision, without having to go through the publisher, or having to use a common search engine to look for keywords endlessly for something mildly relevant. We are all in fact working towards that universal access of information - I think TimBL said a few things on that silly little topic. IMO, this is where it comes apparent that the level of openness that's offered by the publisher is superficial and archaic. The SW community can do much better by removing the unnecessary controls that are in place to control the flow of information. This is whereabouts we should wake up. :) -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. It would be possible to have a fallback contract with a conventional publisher but it's hard to see what's in it for them if they have to paper print everything or migrate to a new format when the Web loses way to something else. Maybe it's more pragmatic to forgoe these assurances of persistence and just hope that economic interests protect the valuable stuff. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. I work towards a network of actionable data just like the rest of you so I don't want to discourage this conversation; I just want to focus it. On Oct 3, 2014 12:12 PM, Sarven Capadisli i...@csarven.ca wrote: On 2014-10-02 13:50, John Domingue wrote: As well as being irritating, UK academics submitting to ESWC run the risk that their papers will not be open to REF submission; even if they are, we have to go to additional efforts to ensure they are green OA published. This is also true of ISWC which makes the semantic web a pretty unattractive area to do research in. for both ISWC and ESWC the PDFs are freely available e.g. see [1] John [1] http://2014.eswc-conferences.org/program/accepted-papers It is great that some agreements between the conferences and the publishers allow open access e.g., [1]. However, lets not forget that: 1) a good chunk of publicly funded research is produced and reviewed for free, meanwhile: 2) the public still ends up paying for the research submissions i.e., institutions pay their fees to subscribe to the periodicals from the publisher. So, not only are we working for free, we are paying again for the research that we've produced. And all meanwhile, insisting on making it easier and preferable by the publisher. Having said that, there is no need to pile on the publisher. After all, they have a business and the intuitions are willing to pay for their services and products. That's okay. Many in the SW field are interested in discovering the research output at great precision, without having to go through the publisher, or having to use a common search engine to look for keywords endlessly for something mildly relevant. We are all in fact working towards that universal access of information - I think TimBL said a few things on that silly little topic. IMO, this is where it comes apparent that the level of openness that's offered by the publisher is superficial and archaic. The SW community can do much better by removing the unnecessary controls that are in place to control the flow of information. This is whereabouts we should wake up. :) -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 2014-10-03 13:36, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: Agreed. In favour of taking action. Just to separate and emphasize on the issues. The original request was merely: Will you consider encouraging the use of Semantic Web / Linked Data technologies for Extended Semantic Web Conference paper submissions? or Will you compromise on the submission such that the submissions can be in PDF and/or in HTML(+RDFa)? This, in my view, attempts to retain the existing workflow. There is nothing here that tries to solve everything (as some misinterpret or paint it as such). Incremental actions are preferable than throwing our hands into the air and running away frantically from the problem that the community brought it onto itself. This is about creating awareness and embracing Web-native technologies for SW research submissions, provided that the final presentation (i.e., in PDF) complies with the requested template, which is passed to the publisher in the end. Just to elaborate on that, while the submissions in the end may only be in PDF (although, it would be great to work it out without that, but one step at a time right?), the fact that the submission line acknowledges the importance and flexibility in creating, sharing, and preserving research knowledge using the technologies in what the conference is all about, should not be underestimated. As a plus, authors that are on their way to going from, say HTML+CSS to PDF, have the opportunity and willingness to make their research contributions publicly accessible under a Web space that they control. The source method to represent this information sets the tone for the rest of the phases. That is, if LaTeX/Word is source, then it is extra work to get HTML out of that, and many would not and do not (in fact) bother. However, if HTML is source (for instance), then we retain that possibility. All meanwhile that the publisher gets their PDF (e.g., via HTML+CSS to print file), as well as authors fulfilling their academic/research requirements. Moving on: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. It would be possible to have a fallback contract with a conventional publisher but it's hard to see what's in it for them if they have to paper print everything or migrate to a new format when the Web loses way to something else. Maybe it's more pragmatic to forgoe these assurances of persistence and just hope that economic interests protect the valuable stuff. This is out of my area, but as I understand it, going from digital source to print is just a view or materializing of said knowledge. History has shown that, both, PDF and HTML are sufficient for storage. Those that wish to archive via PDF can do so. It is just a view after all. However, that one particular view to store knowledge need not set the tone for everything else. I think the tool-chain around HTML/XML tries to lift those restrictions. For instance, with HTML we are free to create any suitable presentation for any device with CSS. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. I'd like to be optimistic about this and entertain the idea that, either the current journals evolve or a new line of journals will seek, embrace and truly employ the scientific method with the aid of available technologies. At this time, it is difficult to solely rely on human-only peer reviews, because it is time consuming and error-prone. If reviewers have the opportunity to better investigate, by raising the support that's available from machines, the truthfulness and reproducibility of given research can be better verified. We are certainly heading in that direction with all the work that goes on in SW and other fields. The bottleneck is that, right now, it is not seriously given the light of day, or even tested out. When SW/LD conferences resist to come to terms with supporting their own fundamentals or visions towards research submissions, how is what we currently have any desirable? Just to be clear, the original proposal is not for all of sciences to adopt. It is for international semantic web conferences. That's the minimal step we can take. So, I agree, some revolution, or maybe just evolution on the idea of putting our own technologies to test will contribute towards increasing the impact factor
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org writes: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. In my area, the majority of journals aren't printed; I've thrown away conference proceedings the last decade anyway. Protocols and formats, yes, true a problem. I think in an argument between HTML and PDF, then it's hard to see one has the advantage over another. My experience is that HTML is easier to extract text from, which is always going to be base line. For what it is worth, there are achiving solutions, including archive.org and arxiv.org both of which leap to mind. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage. I work towards a network of actionable data just like the rest of you so I don't want to discourage this conversation; I just want to focus it. Okay. I would like to know who made the decision that HTML is not acceptable and why. Phil
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
I think that this is at the core of the problem: 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. publishers also own impact factors. in addition, impact factors are thought for printed material not for the web, not to talk about the web of data. there are the alt metrics but those are yet to prove their validity. I keep wondering if html and pdfs are the only options. why not having a real web-of-data native format? On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org writes: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. In my area, the majority of journals aren't printed; I've thrown away conference proceedings the last decade anyway. Protocols and formats, yes, true a problem. I think in an argument between HTML and PDF, then it's hard to see one has the advantage over another. My experience is that HTML is easier to extract text from, which is always going to be base line. For what it is worth, there are achiving solutions, including archive.org and arxiv.org both of which leap to mind. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, it would be good to have a public statement about this. As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage. I work towards a network of actionable data just like the rest of you so I don't want to discourage this conversation; I just want to focus it. Okay. I would like to know who made the decision that HTML is not acceptable and why. Phil -- Alexander Garcia http://www.alexandergarcia.name/ http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
Hi Phillip, Eric, et. al. On Fri, 10/3/14, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org writes: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. [snip] Protocols and formats, yes, true a problem. I think in an argument between HTML and PDF, then it's hard to see one has the advantage over another. My experience is that HTML is easier to extract text from, which is always going to be base line. --- Easier still is (X)HTML or XML written in plain text with Character Entities Hex Escaped. Clipboards are owned by the OS and for ordinary users, syntax errors are fatal; BreadButter (full employment) for Help Desks. Personally, I am un-fond of that ideology. XSLT 2.0 has a (flawless) translation mechanism which eases user pain. I've used it several times for StratML projects. If you want a copy of the transform, contact me off line. --- For what it is worth, there are achiving solutions, including archive.org and arxiv.org both of which leap to mind. --- The archiving solutions work well for the persistance of protocols and formats. Persistance of Linked Data depends upon the ability of an archive to reduce owl:sameAs and rdfs:* to their *export* standards. Professional credibility in all disciplines relies on how well one hefts the lingo - applies the schema labels to shared concepts. Publishers are very sensitive to this concern and it may be Linked Data with the deaf ear. [snip] Okay. I would like to know who made the decision that HTML is not acceptable and why. This is a related issue. The decision to ignore the seperation of concerns issue mentioned above is a user acceptance impediment when protocols and formats are the only parameters considered. In a few decades perhaps we will have real AI, Turing Machines, and academic disciplines will have their own Ontologies which speak to them. As a container, I think HTML is fine. I am not comfortable with RDFa decorations or /html/head meta data as absentee ownership of documents. In the meantime, Archives will have to develop methods to recycle and reduce rdfs:Labels, and they will have to be (uncharactaristically) ruthless. The statistics of RDF rely on a well known paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem). Close matches between name spaces and Ontologies have an extreme bias toward high probability identification. In the end, the probability is just a number, but it intimidates ordinary partial fractions who believe it is the smartest guy in the room. That is rather a bad thing. Cheers, Gannon Phil
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On Oct 3, 2014 11:07 AM, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote: Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org writes: Let's work through the requirements and a plausible migration plan. We need: 1 persistent storage: it's hard to beat books for a feeling of persistence. Contracts with trusted archival institutions can help but we might also want some assurances that the protocols and formats will persist as well. 1. An item printed on NISO Z39.48 conformant paper, using appropriate ink, is intended to have a life expectancy of several hundred years. Issues of testing using accelerated aging complicate matters - see e.g. http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rt/AcceleratedAging.pdf Lossless compression of paper is difficult, which leads to a much higher attrition rate as items are weeded. Retrieval costs become higher as the number of replicas decreases. On the other hand, because a copy of the material is owned, a decision not to continue subscription to a journal does not cause loss of access to previous issues. 2. Document format obsolescence does not seem to be as big a problem as was once feared due to pre-emptive awareness of the issue, and the use of approaches like emulation. See e.g. http://www.dpworkshop.org/dpm-eng/oldmedia/index.html 3. Physical format obsolescence is a bigger issue; however moving forward it is less of a concern since storage media needs to be periodically replaced. 4. Archival data can (and should) be replicated, in multiple locations. Systems like David Rosenthal's LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) use a k-strategy, using a relatively small number of high reliability and high cost replicas, at highly trusted institutions. http://www.lockss.org I proposed an r-strategy approach, using a much larger ad-hoc mesh containing much less reliable storage services with far more copies (requiring much more reasoning and automated planning to conform to preservation and performance policies). The working title was SCHMEER (Several Copies Help Make Everything Eventually Reachable) - alas my advisor, a noted expert in Digital Preservation, was not comfortable with computer thingies... I've thrown away **Weeded** conference proceedings the last decade anyway. 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. The value of publication in formal journals derives solely from scarcity. Because there are only a limited number of slots, they allow for simple metrics. The same value could be achieved by skipping the whole publication part, and just issuing digitally signed badges to go in the disciplinary archives. Sophisticated scientometrics can provide more useful measures of the value of scientific research, but any metric that is known ahead of time can be gamed. Cassidy Sugimoto and I joked about starting a company called pimp my h that would provide bespoke strategic advice on publishing strategies to get the most h for a given amount of new work- intentional obliteration, Google Scholar SEO etc). We never thought of making up imaginary people to cite stuff though. There is a lot of effort going in to making data citable in ways meaningful to funding agencies. Simon
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On 10/3/14 11:12 AM, Alexander Garcia Castro wrote: I think that this is at the core of the problem: 2 impact factor: i have the impression that conventional publishers have a bit of a monopoly and and sudden disruption would be hard to engineer. How do to get leading researchers to devote their work in some new crackpot e-journal to the exclusion of other articles which will earn them more points towards tenure and grants? Perhaps the answer is slowly build the impact factor; perhaps it's some sort of revolution in the minds of administrators and funders. publishers also own impact factors. in addition, impact factors are thought for printed material not for the web, not to talk about the web of data. there are the alt metrics but those are yet to prove their validity. I keep wondering if html and pdfs are the only options. why not having a real web-of-data native format? Or have everything in RDF (specific notation irrelevant) which can be transformed and published using HTML, PDF, Latex, or any other document types. You raised the question that SHOULD have been asked eons ago, in regards to Linked Open Data and all the conferences that swirl around it :) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Cost and access (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)
On Fri, 10/3/14, Simon Spero sesunc...@gmail.com wrote: We never thought of making up imaginary people to cite stuff though. Never mind that, imagine the automation possibilities Huge numbers of imaginary people talking to themselves ... (thanks for the laugh) There is a lot of effort going in to making data citable in ways meaningful to funding agencies. A few years ago, I wrote a page which enables Agencies of the US Government to discover like-interested peers within so they could compare stratigies and plans. Simply talking to each other would be a possible solution, but given that the Agencies compete for funds with the same funding agency - Congress - there is a reluctance to be too open with each other. The output is Library of Congress MODS XML. It is dated, but here it is: http://www.rustprivacy.org/faca/samples/displayStratMLcorrespondants.html --Gannon
