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

Re: Copyright / Credit / Citations - discussion

From: Peter Thiessen <thiessenp@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:01:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CALf9uGBsP6degZ1mGqXextqi=m9RKG1KWFdKLg2jx1uCFbkyHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markel Vigo <markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
About copyright, my opinion would be to go with whichever has less
overhead. I suspect publishing with the ACM would require less work /
future worry on our part, other than maintaining links on the research
notes.

Markel your comment about Cherry picking accepted papers, I absolutely
agree but has anyone suggested this? Or does this comment go back to a
previous discussion about potentially leaving flexibility in the call
on how a research note will be formatted?

+peter


On 8 March 2012 10:38, Markel Vigo <markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> I'm in general in favour of what is being said here so far.
>
> Regardless the copyright issues I believe that we should pursue a publication of proceedings under the umbrella of W3C. The "W3C RDWG Proceedings Series" is an excellent step in that direction. If this is not possible due to liability issues I'd go for attaching submissions as appendixes to the Research Note.
>
> 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 Mar 8, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
>
>> Please see my comments inline as well.
>>
>> On 8 Mar 2012, at 10:59, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>
>>> On 8.3.2012 09:34, Simon Harper wrote:
>>>> 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%*
>>>
>>> Totally. But for the record, authors may also be compelled by a better referencing concept, if we manage to come up with one that they prefer.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - 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) *
>>>
>>> +1 from me too.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - 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.*
>>>
>>> A agree with Simon, I think authors should keep their copyrights.
>>
>> When I wrote that I did not really consider copyrights. I thought if that will be the approach, we would make sure that necessary arrangements would be done with the copyright transfers. However, I really like the idea below, see my comments below.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> Sorry for my ignorance but what does "DL" stand for?
>>
>> Digital Library, W3C Digital Library, Ohh I like this :)
>>
>> I think this would be great.
>>
>>>
>>> I would really like to pursue what this "container" could look like. Could we create something like an RDWG Series that can be referenced and picked up effectively by scientific search engines and databases?
>>>
>>> We had such a concept in our initial planning but I think be blurred the lines by combining "proceedings" and "consolidated findings" for our first symposium. Here is what we initially planned:
>>> - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/process#publications>
>>>
>>>
>>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> +1 to both points.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yeliz.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:02:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:02:12 GMT