W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:12:57 -0800
Message-ID: <4B76F9B9.9060104@topquadrant.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Ying Ding <dingying@indiana.edu>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
> However it did not leave any footprint in the academic literature. We
> might ask why. Like much of the work around W3C and tech industry
> standards, the artifacts it left behind don't often show up in the
> citation databases. A white paper here, a Web-based specification
> there, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic
> citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority
> of papers mentioned in
> http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf
> would never have existed.
>
>
>   

IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I 
think with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C 
effort, essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer 
path for the academic work

Maybe:

OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web
Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah 
McGuinness 3, and
Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4

"Given the current dominance and
importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be 
formulated using
existing web standards for information representation."

Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C 
recs. These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They 
also have better review process than academic stuff.

I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened.


Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 13 February 2010 19:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC