W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bioschemas@w3.org > April 2018

Fwd: ESWC2018 poster&demo - notification for paper 242

From: ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:38:13 +0100
To: public-bioschemas@w3.org
Message-ID: <2eedccc4206c85cee869ad6196506f6a@ebi.ac.uk>
Dear all,

Unfortunately, the poster submission for eswc was not accepted. Still, 
from the reviews, I would say Bioschemas is getting attention and 
recognition as a valuable contribution.

Regards,

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ESWC2018 poster&demo - notification for paper 242
Date: 2018-04-12 19:36
 From: ESWC2018 <eswc2018@easychair.org>
To: Leyla Jael García Castro <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>

Dear Leyla Jael,
We regret to inform you that your contribution
How the research community can benefit from schema.org
could not been accepted for the ESWC2018 Posters and Demos session at 
this time.
We hope that you find reviewers’ feedback helpful for your future work.

Bests,
Anna Lisa Gentile, IBM Research Almaden, US <annalisa.gentile@ibm.com>
Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese, STLab, ISTC-CNR, Italy 
<andrea.nuzzolese@istc.cnr.it>
https://2018.eswc-conferences.org


----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
PAPER: 242
TITLE: How the research community can benefit from schema.org
AUTHORS: Leyla Jael García Castro and  Bioschemas Community

Overall evaluation and score: 2 (reject)
Open Reviewing Opting Out: yes

----------- Overall evaluation and score -----------
The paper is well written and addresses an important problem of reuse of 
semantic  markup and schema discoverability. Howewer, this paper almost 
completely lacks any novelty or even a technical element. It reads like 
an advertisement for schema.org aimed at the general public. It is 
unclear from the paper what is the relation between 
http://bioschemas.org to schema.org. I am wondering if the paper should 
not actually be about http://bioschemas.org rather than schema.org?


----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
PAPER: 242
TITLE: How the research community can benefit from schema.org
AUTHORS: Leyla Jael García Castro and  Bioschemas Community

Overall evaluation and score: 3 (weak accept)
Open Reviewing Opting Out: no

----------- Overall evaluation and score -----------
The paper discusses benefits and limitations that can be perceived by 
the research community through the use of microdata of schema.org for 
annotating web resources. The experience of bioschemas.org is 
illustrated to show the possible concrete contribution of microdata to 
the research community.

Pros: The topic addressed in the paper is interesting and appropriate 
for ESWC.

Cons: Technical and experimental support to the paper claims are 
limited. In the present form, the paper is a naive presentation of 
author opinions/feelings based on a limited (even if encouraging) 
experience. Some experimental data would be appreciated to show the 
concrete benefits of adopting microdata in a research context in 
comparison with a traditional approach.


----------------------- REVIEW 3 ---------------------
PAPER: 242
TITLE: How the research community can benefit from schema.org
AUTHORS: Leyla Jael García Castro and  Bioschemas Community

Overall evaluation and score: 1 (strong reject)
Open Reviewing Opting Out: no

----------- Overall evaluation and score -----------
How the research community can benefit from schema.org

The paper generally discusses advantages and drawbacks of using 
schema.org. The need for effective search engines for research datasets 
is emphasized. Discoverability problems stem from the lack of metadata, 
therefore the authors argue that schema.org can be applied as a remedy.
The problem is important and relevant but the approach in the paper does 
not introduce anything new. The authors point at missing vocabularies at 
schema.org, which can be extended in various ways. The paper missed the 
opportunity to present Bioschemas; it could be a nice addition for the 
ESWC conference as a poster.
Minor comments:
•	The authors mention the RDFa as a way to embed semantic content in 
HTML but the example given is in Microdata. Moreover, “100 years of 
solitude” is not a book but a title of the book.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2018 12:38:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 April 2018 12:38:38 UTC