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

Re: ESWC2018 poster&demo - notification for paper 242

From: Carole Goble <carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:46:16 +0000
To: ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
CC: "public-bioschemas@w3.org" <public-bioschemas@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1294993B-0EFE-4B90-94AA-8992F5E2C4EC@manchester.ac.uk>
Hi Leyla

These reviews tell us to speak to bioschemas in its own right 

Carole 

Sent from my iPhone by
Professor Carole Goble
The University of Manchester
UK

> On 16 Apr 2018, at 13:39, ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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 12:46:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 April 2018 12:46:44 UTC