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

Copyright / Credit / Citations - discussion

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:34:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4F586F11.5090102@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
CC: RDWG RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi Yeliz, let me respond

As I have written before, my thoughts are as follows:
- I think for the first webinar, it is very important that we do what we have said we will do in the call, otherwise I think it is not ethical. People decide to submit because of the call and its promises.

*SH - I agree 100%*

  - For the following webinars, I think it is important that these abstracts are published somewhere that they are referencable. If they are published on the web, then I think its important that they have permanent location (URI) and they also have ISSN numbers.

*SH - I also agree and these may also be DOIs and like Giorgios suggested referencing

[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 tohttp://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper11) *


- I also think it might be a good idea to publish them with ACM / IEEE or Springer which *academically* gives them better status and in order to do this, may be they can be published with a journal, newsletter, etc. along with the note. However, one has to be careful with this approach as even though the abstracts are never been published, most of the work presented has been published elsewhere.


*SH - So I'm not in favour of this as we don't own copyright and so cannot transfer it over to those journals, also it should be up to the authors to decide.*


*SH - My main point is how/where do we store these in perpetuity, and how do we insure that the authors see them as a worthwhile quality publication that they wish to contribute too. Originally this was via the appendix of a w3c note - which has higher status than pages on a website IMO - in previous discussions we've referred to this as the conceptual "container" to use for the papers. Now my view is that it is more useful to think of the note as a Technical Report or Conference Proceedings with all papers published within it. In this way readers can easily and immediately refer to the paper the editors discuss - maybe we should think of this as simply 2 parts (not an appendix) - part 1 is the Official Report (created by the Editors and agreed by the RDWG) - part 2 are the webinar proceedings. If we had an official DL (real DL) then this would also be acceptable to me - like the ACM DL or the arxiv.org CoRR for instance. We need the container to be a container for all publications in the (RDWG) series and each edition (Webinar) within it - in my opinion this is more than a webpage.*

*SH - However, I wonder how everyone else sees this.*

*SH - One final point - if we accept a paper then we are honor bound to publish and treat it like all the rest. If we accept something this is an agreement that we will publish it - ie no cherry picking what we agree with, or think is more worthy than another - this kind of extra-selection/censorship is not the point of the RDWG or its editors - this selection is only based on the criteria enacted by the scientific committee - the editors don't get to overrule this selection.*

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 07/03/2012 13:18, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I won't be able to attend the meeting again today as I have to attend our departmental meeting again :( It is the beginning of the new semester and we could not cover all the topics last week :( Please see my comments about the agenda below.
>
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 19:22, Simon Harper wrote:
>> Agenda+ Welcome&  Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments).
> Regrets.
>
>> Agenda+ Has Mobile Pre-Call been Released?
> I think it is ready and we will finalise the scientific committee by the end of this week.
>
>> Agenda+ W3C Note: Specific Substantive Changes to 3.7, combine(4.1.3, 4.1.4, missed complexity), 4.3, and Conclusions ONLY.
> I am happy about the changes, thanks to editors.
>
>> Agenda+ Copyright / Credit / Citations - discussion.
> As I have written before, my thoughts are as follows:
> - I think for the first webinar, it is very important that we do what we have said we will do in the call, otherwise I think it is not ethical. People decide to submit because of the call and its promises.
> - For the following webinars, I think it is important that these abstracts are published somewhere that they are referencable. If they are published on the web, then I think its important that they have permanent location (URI) and they also have ISSN numbers.
> - I also think it might be a good idea to publish them with ACM / IEEE or Springer which *academically* gives them better status and in order to do this, may be they can be published with a journal, newsletter, etc. along with the note. However, one has to be careful with this approach as even though the abstracts are never been published, most of the work presented has been published elsewhere.
>
> Regards,
> Yeliz.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 08:34:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 March 2012 08:34:53 GMT