W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:46:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4a4804721002131146p3ade47dag6b5b1d55de50f475@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ying Ding <dingying@indiana.edu>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Jeremy

I also agree with Dan's post and it adds a lot of insights

however

I dont think the paper necessarily 'misrepresents'
rather, it provides a partial view , IMHO

statistical analyses tend to present skewed views of the world in all fields
nobody in their right mind would take at face value the results of
statistical analyses without
checking if they correspond to reality
(apart obviously from some academics)

****
people have lots of citations to their credit when they have scores of
students who are obliged to cite
their professors, or lots of friends who reciprocate,  it does not mean that
the paper cited are necessarily  good ones
thats a fact about citation life
***

so, if we were to tell the story of the SW only from that paper, i agree it
would be misleading

as long as nobody believes that the truth about something can be contained
in any single analysis


I am interested in reality as a view, because thats all we get, anyway, no
matter what

(it can be a better view)

i am going through a similar dilemma in my research, ca I really provide the
state of the art in any given subject
simply by looking at academic literature of it? that would be foolish (thats
what they like to believe in universities)

no - to begin to have a state of the art, I have to talk to people, and take
a good look around various sources and repositories


there are methodological validity considerations of course in such a paper
the research question for me is: how valid are all partial views of the
world?

it says 'accepted for pubilcation', does it mean there is still time to make
some corrections?

some statement about the limitations of the approach, plus additional
considerations and context provided
by this community and Dans post, could help make the paper an interesting
contribution in itself
both as a statistical analysis /account and in contrast to reality as
observed outside from literature

a proof that once again some facts can all be true, but unless the picture
is 'complete'.... can be misleading

my inclination would be to try to add a couple of layers of context at the
intro and conclusions

I dont like to see efforts go to waste, however partial

best


PDM


On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>wrote:

> Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>> However it did not leave any footprint in the academic literature. We
>> might ask why. Like much of the work around W3C and tech industry
>> standards, the artifacts it left behind don't often show up in the
>> citation databases. A white paper here, a Web-based specification
>> there, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic
>> citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority
>> of papers mentioned in
>> http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf<http://info.slis.indiana.edu/%7Edingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf>
>> would never have existed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I think
> with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C effort,
> essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer path for
> the academic work
>
> Maybe:
>
> OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web
> Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah McGuinness
> 3, and
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4
>
> "Given the current dominance and
> importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be
> formulated using
> existing web standards for information representation."
>
> Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C recs.
> These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They also have
> better review process than academic stuff.
>
> I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened.
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
**************************************************
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
Albert Einstein
**************************************************
Received on Saturday, 13 February 2010 19:46:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:34 GMT