1. We don't have such an organization. Several companies are trying
to become this.
2. As I pointed out, ACM's classification has little to do with modern
CS. I struggle to find useful classifiers for many of my papers. So
it's largely useless for many things I do. If it's value-add was
classi
In 2000, search wasn't nearly as good as it is now.
If your memory is so bad, perhaps you are getting old :-)
What I am saying is that back then, the classification
took us to look in specific places. If we had a single
organization that classified all these papers, we probably
would have fou
With a classification system that really hopes that the past twenty
years never happened. Real useful. (And I guess it's the ACM's power
to make it look like they never did!)
Shriram
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> ACM conference also classify your paper so
> tha
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, 201
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
wrote:
>
> The word 'acm' isn't meant literally here. Any body that
> cla
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 w
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
> 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, Matthi
Did Stephen find it because of the ACM somehow?
Robby
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Matthias Felleisen
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 f
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 clo
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.goo
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 "
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.
Jo
13 matches
Mail list logo
