W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2017

Re: DISCLAIMER (was Re: [CfP] Journal of Web Semantics (JWS) - Special Issue on Ontology Engineering)

From: Alexander Garcia Castro <alexgarciac@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:19:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CALAe=OJ5-+nNu8LA7sCaV=P1pM1HRbraB82soR6kNj-cWi2uAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu
Cc: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@stanford.edu>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Krzysztof , why is this picture of the publishing industry inaccurate?
there must be some truth there because it is not just Sarven  the one with
this perception -others are, however, less vociferous. Maybe we need less
political correctness with businesses that provide a service to us (the
message being we can remove/change them) and more rightfulness with the
community of researchers as a whole.

As a disclaimer: I dont receive any money from the publishing industry. I
am not an editor for any journal and at this moment I dont have any
business relation with the publishing industry other than paying APCs for
something that I really dont understand what am I paying for.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
wrote:

> On 08/07/2017 11:34 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
>
>> On 2017-08-05 12:59, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>
>>> While normally I consider the desire to publish scientific papers in
>>> HTML as quite silly given the lack of support of MathML by major
>>> browsers and the need to use LateX in computer science,
>>>
>> Grab coffee.
>>
>> I think that this is not a showstopper because the alternative is not:
>>
>> * resort to LaTeX/Word..
>> * resort to handing publicly funded work to a company
>>
>
> This has nothing to do with LaTeX versus HTML.
>
> * resort to paying fees to get access back to the work
>>
>
> Same here.
>
> * resort to numbing Web researchers from using the native Web stack
>>
>> Again, that's precisely what the Web Semantics journal is doing and
>> encouraging. Shameful.
>>
>
> This kind of strong wording is damaging your mission. It also paints an
> inaccurate picture of the publishing industry.
>
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
>
>
>> The fact of the matter is that, if researchers agree on the final goal
>> of using the native Web stack, and controlling their own work, there are
>> options however imperfect: MathML, MathJax ( https://www.mathjax.org/ ),
>> Web fonts, SVG, bitmap images, Flash (not a real suggestion), a photo of
>> whiteboard or handwritten equations, and more. We can nitpick the whole
>> day on any given approach, but the bottom line is that it can be
>> achieved and still reasonable - I'll get back to this in a moment.
>>
>> If those options are still inadequate, and if the goal still remains to
>> open up and make the best of the Web, people can dedicate energy to
>> improve the state of the art. It would be absurd to think that we are
>> indefinitely stuck with LaTeX for mathematics on the Web.
>>
>> So, we don't just throw our hands up in the air and walk away - at the
>> same time throwing the whole academic community under the bus - just
>> because some Web tech is imperfect, and might as well resort to LaTeX.
>>
>> We improve the Web because we are idealists. We join standards
>> organisations or create communities to address the shortcomings - just
>> as we have in the past.
>>
>> Springer can't even manage to display code blocks in their HTML copies.
>> Literally uses *gif* of a PDF (or something) rendering eg:
>>
>> https://static-content.springer.com/image/chp%3A10.1007%
>> 2F978-3-319-58068-5_33/MediaObjects/449646_1_En_33_Figb_HTML.gif
>>
>> That is a major joke!
>>
>> If Springer, with all the funding at their disposal decides to create a
>> gif of a script block from a LaTeX source, and deemed it to be
>> "acceptable" (by their standards at least) in academic articles, we can
>> apply the same line of reasoning and do it ourselves. Pure and simple.
>> Compare what you get out of the box:
>>
>> * http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-58068-5_33
>> * http://csarven.ca/linked-data-notifications
>>
>> It makes zero sense to pay these companies from public funds to reduce
>> the quality of the representations/semantics, interactive components..
>> regardless of if they get LaTeX or even HTML.
>>
>> What they generate is bare minimum junk in comparison to what the
>> authors can express; multimodal, semantic, social, decentralised
>> solutions with some commitment to interop on the Web.
>>
>> Hence, I reject the general line of argument: "x is not perfect,
>> therefore let's instead p00p on the Web".
>>
>> I agree the
>>> scientific community - especially the Semantic Web community, a
>>> community in theory devoted to open data - should refuse to publish or
>>> review in Elsevier journals given their particularly atrocious track
>>> record, including support of SOPA/PIPA etc. in the past:
>>>
>>> For more, see the Elsevier boycott:
>>> http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_
>>> publishing_reform
>>>
>> And something a bit more recent and concrete, "at the end of 2017, the
>> following bodies announced that they would no longer extend their
>> contract with Elsevier":
>>
>> https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2017/
>>
>> Note in response to the boycott, Elsevier now has open access journals.
>>> Obviously the Web Semantics journal could become an Open Access journal:
>>>
>>> https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/
>>> open-access-journals
>>>
>>> Why is it not?
>>>
>> Possibly because APC model requires authors/public institutions to feed
>> even more money (on top of what their libraries pay for instance) into
>> the scholarly system, and so the editors of the journal may have figured
>> that would not be feasible - or maybe it just didn't even occur to them.
>> In any case, getting the money out of the system is a "goal", so just
>> taking OA approach for the sake of it is not solving anything.
>>
>> Moreover, even if gold/green OA was in place, it still doesn't address
>> the disclaimer point on crafting multimodal research objects, ie. the
>> bar is still set to their content/data publishing pipeline - which is
>> archaic as it gets.
>>
>> -Sarven
>> http://csarven.ca/#i
>>
>>
> --
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
> Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
>


-- 
Alexander Garcia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Garcia
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 10:19:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 7 August 2017 10:20:04 UTC