W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd@w3.org > February 2012

Re: suggestion for "Copyright Policy" section

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <4F45F90C.5000401@manchester.ac.uk>
To: giorgio brajnik <brajnik@uniud.it>
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>, Peter Thiessen <peterdev001@gmail.com>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Great one Giorgio,

I like the second version best.

But to attract quality submissions, a proceedings like w3cNote has more 
'value' I think than an entry on a web page - otherwise, why are we 
creating a w3c note as opposed to just adding the text we are creating 
as an entry on the site?

I might, as a compromise, be OK with having the note and a list of 
referenced papers in the format you suggest, somewhere prominent in that 
note.

Shadi / Shawn - will Google index, in Scholar, the Note and the seminar 
site with the papers in it?

Si.

PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.

=======================
Simon Harper
http://simon.harper.name/about/card/

University of Manchester (UK)
Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk


On 23/02/12 08:17, giorgio brajnik wrote:
> Why don't we try as an exercise to write some example of references?
>
> How would you refer to the research note[1]?
> and how to the paper by Nietzio et al[2]?
>
> My suggestion is something like
>
> [1] M. Vigo, G. Brajnik and J. O'Connor, Research note on Web 
> Accessibility Metrics, 2012. In Website Accessibility Metrics, Online 
> Symposium 5 December 2011, http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics (and 
> the URL of the research note itself)
>
> [2] A Niezio, M Eibegger, M. Goodwin, M Snaprud, Towards a score 
> function for WCAG 2.0 benchmarking, 2011. In Website Accessibility 
> Metrics, Online Symposium 5 December 2011, 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics (and link to 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper11)
>
> or, alternatively:
>
> [2] A Niezio, M Eibegger, M. Goodwin, M Snaprud, Towards a score 
> function for WCAG 2.0 benchmarking, 2011. In Proc. of Website 
> Accessibility Metrics, Online Symposium 5 December 2011, Vigo, 
> Brajnik, O'Connor (eds.), http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics (and 
> link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper11)
>
>
> The reason for having the note is to provide context and some 
> interpretation of results.
>
>   Giorgio
>
>
> On 02/23/2012 08:47 AM, Simon Harper wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> So for me I feel that if we accept a paper we should include it -
>> otherwise we should not accept it. Further, the argument that
>> publications included as part of the site, ie on the web are as citable
>> as the note - just doesn't hold up. I see the note as the proceedings of
>> the seminar. In this case we could have 2 sections the first being by
>> the editors, the second being each paper - referenced as a proceedings.
>> If the site has the same status as the note then why do we have a note
>> at all?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Si.
>>
>> PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster
>> response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.
>>
>> =======================
>> Simon Harper
>> http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
>>
>> University of Manchester (UK)
>> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
>> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>>
>>
>> On 22/02/12 22:31, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Talk:Mobile_Pre_CFP>
>>>
>>> Instead of: "Accepted papers will be published - in attributable form
>>> - as part of the proceedings and in the ensuing publication, which
>>> will be published using the W3C Document License."
>>>
>>> Consider: "Accepted papers will be published as part of the
>>> proceedings. Accepted papers may also be referenced or included (in
>>> full or in part) in attributable form in the ensuing publication,
>>> which will be published using the W3C Document License."
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Shadi
>>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:30:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:30:29 GMT