Re: Final CFP: In-Use Track ISWC 2013

I think Harry makes the point better than I can.

Paul


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/2013 08:12 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>
>>> As you know, the community produces the semantic web dogfood site
>>> that contains Linked Data about the papers published by the
>>> community's conferences and workshops. This refers to that.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>  I thought my response and Carsten's  addressed your email with
>>> respect to LISC. There was also a very long thread appearing
>>> afterwards talking about the various aspects to this around
>>> publication formats. I think you have to acknowledge that there are
>>> disagreements with your position with respect to technology for
>>> publication.
>>>
>>
>> The disagreements that you speak of are completely off topic.
>>
>> The core of the discussion is to have plain old simple HTML welcomed.
>> Maybe I've miscommunicated that at some point. It is really not a debate
>> around whether to use HTML5 or XHTML or whichever accompanying semantic
>> representations for the data, and being a show-stopper. It is pretty much a
>> matter of fact that there is a difference of opinion on that, and it is not
>> going to be resolved in the near future. Trying to resolve that is not the
>> best use of our time. Those that want to go for it, no one is stopping them.
>>
>
> Please read more careful from conference chairs like myself and Daniel
> Schwabe why experiments including even "plain old" HTML have failed so far
> unfortunately. Namely, broken links to images, lack of convertibility to
> PDF needed for book printing, etc.
>
> What I do (see for example, my thesis [1]) is publish HTML versions of
> paper on my website when I have the time. However, the main problem even
> with self-publishing HTML of academic papers is that tex2html, which is
> necessary for the conversion (I don't use Word) seems not to have been
> updated since like 1996 :)
>
> The  burden of making a working toolchain I think falls on those who want
> it. I'd like it, but not enough to devote the time to work on it as my time
> is already overbooked.
>
>    cheers,
>       harry
>
> [1]http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/thesis
>
>
>
>
>>
>> At the end, it really doesn't make a difference any way which (X)HTML to
>> use when our goal is a compromise: 1) use some HTML + CSS (with style guide
>> requested) 2) get a resulting view (e.g., in PDF) that's fairly consistent.
>> That's something important that we can accomplish. It doesn't matter if it
>> is also accompanied with RDFa, Microdata, miroformats - the community can
>> sort that out as they wish.
>>
>> See also example responses [1] [2] [3] [4] that's trying to keep it
>> focused.
>>
>> Here is one proof of concept [5].
>>
>>
>>  I don't know why your pessimistic - we are publishing rdf data about
>>> our publications , more authors are providing links to code and data
>>> sources, we have open access forums for our papers. Journals like SWJ
>>> are experimenting with new forms of peer review.
>>>
>>
>> Those are all important but different issues.
>>
>> If someone is doing "science", it goes without saying that the data needs
>> to be provided as well as a clear path to reproducing the same results. And
>> the possibility to communicate due to open access to that knowledge. That's
>> not some feature that SW/LD community invented and lets not get over
>> ourselves by pretending to have something remarkable in place. It is the
>> minimum requirement for sciences. No source code? Cya! Any barrier to
>> acquire that knowledge? Cya!
>>
>> Lets be clear on "we are publishing rdf data about our publications". It
>> is exactly that; "about" it. There goes an opportunity to have countless
>> invaluable structured statements. Paper after paper. Even if some RDF is
>> stuffed into PDF, c'mon, that's a total hack as far as LD is concerned and
>> is mostly metadata. We should aim higher in that regard.
>>
>>
>>  The linked data community is full of experiments and great stuff to
>>> do better science.
>>>
>>
>> If you want to participate in an experiment, *please*, welcome a flavour
>> of HTML and if the committee wants, their favourite structured formats.
>> That would mean a lot. Some other track, journal or workshop can do their
>> own thing as long as we have a base like HTML.
>>
>> If you can't do that, I would like to learn about the main reason and not
>> off-track on minute discussion points given the big picture. Whatever it
>> is, I want a fix and make it happen.
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Apr/**0376.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Apr/0376.html>
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Apr/**0318.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Apr/0318.html>
>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Apr/**0346.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Apr/0346.html>
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013May/**0023.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013May/0023.html>
>> [5] https://github.com/csarven/**linked-research<https://github.com/csarven/linked-research>
>>
>> -Sarven
>>
>>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam