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

Re: suggestion for "Copyright Policy" section

From: Christos Kouroupetroglou <chris.kourou@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:11:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPpNJJ_Fi_2Q6FMQ_yREYgJRmSc1rbt9obpC5EDuUb+w1LEUkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-wai-rd@w3.org
Hi everyone,

I understand that accepting papers without publishing them in a
citable form is not an option and lowers significantly the prestige
and the incentives for attracting submissions in the future. I think
that Markel suggested the best solution up to now.

Let's have two separate documents. The first being the proceedings
where all papers are included in a citable form (and we also have a
short presentation/introduction of them) and another being the W3C
note which provides the conclusions and the further research
suggestions of the editors and the working group in general.

In that sense, I understand Shadi's opinion that we shouldn't commit
in referencing all papers from the symposium in the W3C note, since
not all of them may contribute significantly in the notes conclusions
and discussion. However, what will a research note without many
references to the symposium say? That we did the whole thing for
nothing. So the more the W3C note references to the proceedings the
more we show the importance of the event and the papers accepted.
Otherwise, we are organising a set of events without showing any
respect to the contributions and without actually taking them under
account seriously. Would you think that this is a good strategy for
attracting papers in the future? My point is that we shouldn't commit
in referencing all papers in the note (just for the shake of being
nice to authors), but we should try to do so in order to justify the
sympoium's existence.

As for the quality of the papers and the symposium in general, I think
that only time and references gathered from other authors will tell.

Last but not least I like more the second option of referencing to
papers of the symposium. Seeing it as a potential author this is a bit
more "formal" that the other and ties up better with the 2 documents

[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)

Christos Kouroupetroglou

2012/2/23 Yehya Mohamad <yehya.mohamad@fit.fraunhofer.de>:
> Hi all,
> Am 23.02.2012 09:46, schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra:
>> Hi Josh,
>> On 23.2.2012 09:40, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm a little confused about what the issue is. Quality seems to be a
>>> part of it but also it seems to be how we present the papers that we do
>>> accept? I agree with Simon that if we accept a paper, we accept a paper.
>>> So it should be a full citizen, and referenced in the normal manner.
>>> This is an incentive for people to submit.
>> I don't think publication is being challenged. I think we all agree that
>> all accepted papers will be published as part of the proceedings (in a
>> referencable form and with a permanent URI).
>> The question is if we then also need to always include these same papers
>> as appendices to the consolidated WG Note.
> I agree with Shadi, usually papers are published in the proceedings of a
> conference, any publications beyond that try to select the most interesting
> and promising papers/aspects of the conference to achieve deeper impact. In
> this sense I would present it as -  all papers accepted are published in the
> proceedings and the best papers will be presented in the notes-!
> Best regards,
> Yehya
> Dr. Yehya Mohamad
> mailto:mohamad@fit.fraunhofer.de http://www.fit.fraunhofer.de/
> Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik (FIT.UCC)
> [Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.UCC)]
> Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
> Tel: +49-2241-142846 Fax: +49-02241-1442846
> http://imergo.com
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 15:11:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:42 UTC