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

Re: Copyright / Credit / Citations - discussion

From: giorgio brajnik <brajnik@uniud.it>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:51:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4F587328.1060803@uniud.it>
To: simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk
CC: RDWG RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
See my comments below.


On 03/08/2012 09:34 AM, Simon Harper wrote:
> 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%*
*GB: me too
> - 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
*GB: I agree.
> [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.*
*GB: No, I'm not in favour too. we don't have the copyright, editors 
might have to negotiate with publishers, publishers might require 
additional work on the papers (after our acceptance), work should be 
original. Too complex IMO.
> *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.*
*GB: publishing the RN and the papers in the w3c.org website, inside a 
section which conceptually is a small digital library of proceedings of 
"W3C Online Symposia", would be the best solution. Aligned to what we 
promised. Within each proceedings there would be 1 research note and n 
> *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.*

*GB: I agree 100%
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 08:52:28 UTC

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