W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Call for Linked Research

From: Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:46:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAE__kdT1iNC7-Zgi4+RJqQpGdm1ne8a4pAt=EyDOrDd7LHs8cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
A publishing venue I'll suggest to all of you is

http://arxiv.org/

which actually does get some papers relevant to the semantic web,  see

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/abs:+rdf/0/1/0/all/0/1

arXiv is something that fits the traditional paper-based model,  but
has open access.  It is the biggest physics publisher on the planet,
and whatever bad blood their could be with journals has been decided
on the favor of arXiv largely because the APS had a PMA about it back
in the 1990s,  when I was a grad student.

I can't speak for the ACM,  but if you are interested in the politics
the czar for computer science at arXiv is Joseph Halpern at Cornell
and you should talk with him: halpern@cs.cornell.edu
ᐧ

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> On 2014-07-28 16:16, Paul Houle wrote:
>>
>> I'd add to all of this publishing the raw data,  source code,  and
>> industrialized procedures so that results are truly reproducible,  as
>> few results in science actually are.
>
>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2. Publish your progress and work following the Linked Data design
>>> principles. Create a URI for everything that is of some value to you and
>>> may
>>> be to others e.g., hypothesis, workflow steps, variables, provenance,
>>> results etc.
>
>
>
> Agreed, but I think point 2 covers that. It was not my intention to give a
> complete coverage of the scientific method. Covering reproducibility is a
> given. It also goes for making sure that all of the publicly funded research
> material is accessible and free. And, one should not have to go through a
> 3rd party service ("gatekeepers") to get a hold of someone else's knowledge.
>
> If we can not have open and free access to someone else's research, or
> reproduce (within reasonable amount of effort), IMO, that "research" *does
> not exist*. That may not be a popular opinion out there, but I fail to see
> how such inaccessible work would qualify as scientific. Having to create an
> account on a publisher's site, and pay for the material, is not what I
> consider accessible. Whether that payment is withdrawn directly from my
> account or indirectly from the institution I'm with (which still comes out
> of my pocket).
>
> Any way, this is discussed in great detail elsewhere by a lot of smart
> folks. Like I said, I had different intentions in my proposal i.e., DIY.
> Control your own publishing on the Web. If you must, hand out a copy e.g.,
> PDF, to fulfil your h-index high-score.
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>



-- 
Paul Houle
Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF
(607) 539 6254    paul.houle on Skype   ontology2@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 18:46:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC