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 22:25:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPpNJJ98Mssg8sCbj=thNwhrJZJJOiR1qTu0y1iohqWS6mjEow@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi all,

Shadi, thanks for the clarification. Now I think it's more evident
that having 2 separate documents with different purposes solves the
problems Since we are going to provide a citable form for the papers,
I don't see the point in including/coping them in the research note.
We just reference them from the proceedings.

Regards,
Christos

2012/2/23 Peter <peterdev001@gmail.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> Shadi: just to clarify, if I understand your argument, your all for
> (so to speak) however we decide to format a note but that it would be
> wise *not* to commit to authors specifics about file storage / linking
> details in a pre-call / call?
>
> If so, sure, that sort of flexibility sounds good to me, so long as we
> internally commit to a best effort for accepting high quality papers
> and referencing them in some useful way. (which I think we've pretty
> much all expressed a concern for)
>
> +peter
>
>
> On 23 February 2012 20:22, Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr> wrote:
>> I agree with Markel. How about ACM? or other places for publishing the proceedings or may be we can talk to SIGACCESS newsletter editors to have them published in the newsletter so that they can be referenced.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yeliz.
>> On 23 Feb 2012, at 11:18, Markel Vigo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Apparently we all agree that submissions have to be citeable. Why don't we deal with the research note and proceedings in a separate way?
>>>
>>> - On the one hand we have the Research Note, which refers to the symposium in one of the sections (section 3) but mainly contains the research carried out by the editors. I understand that this one should also stand out.
>>>
>>> - On the other hand, we have the citeable proceedings of the symposium in another separate document(s).
>>>
>>> So I agree with Giorgio's first formula (with small modifications):
>>>
>>> [1] M. Vigo, G. Brajnik and J. O'Connor, Research note on Web Accessibility Metrics, 2012. W3C Research Note on Website Accessibility Metrics (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)
>>>
>>> Another alternative is to remove section 3 from the RN and use it as an introduction in a separate document that will gather all submissions. This document can be understood as proceedings.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, something should be done so that papers of the symposium in any form are collected by Scholar and similar engines (I assume that the RN will be indexed by crawlers). Currently only paper #6 is indexed by Scholar (and not very properly).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Markel Vigo
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> University of Manchester (UK)
>>> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
>>>
>>> PS: I check my email at 9AM and 5PM BST. If you require a faster response please include the word [fast!] in the subject line.
>>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Shadi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
>>>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>>>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>>>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:25:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:25:39 GMT