Re: Off topic - Dagstuhl and research in general - was Re: Trip Reports on Dagstuhl Seminar on Knowledge Graphs

Hugh

As you say yourself, your post is off topic.
Looks like you are trying to divert the attention from what is being
discussed.

Looks to me that either you have not read the abstracts, are are not
familiar with the state of the art

Just recalled that you and I had very similar exchanges on this list before
in relation to different projects a decade or two ago. Same thing still
happening
I must have forgotten otherwise I wound not have started this

Takes decades of reading a subject and seeing what happens in the field to
appreciate
the pattern that emerges

The critique in this thread is not directed to the Dugstuhl initiative, or
the good stuff that happened of the workshop nor to the participating
crowds, let along to previous workshops, and their participants

I made observations in relation to obvious deficiencies of what is being
done that, to me, transpire from
the report - admitting its not a complete account, as I research the subject

Knowledge Graphs are glorified triples, without better qualification KGs as
KR for SW
is arguably futile effort.

Rehashing old research with fresh trendy titles is deceiving-
Its not just the funding - a million euros for a tiny diagram made up of a
few lines and few dots?
repeated over multiple projects? come on
 is untenable.

But its the lack of perspectives and depth that in the long term can be
harmful
and, sadly, its the norm. I had just forgotten this is the way things are
otherwise I would not have brought it up again

 This can happen only because of the lack of public scrutiny, or carefully
orchestrated  scrutiny
It all happens behind the scenes, but the consequences reverberate far
beyond the funding cycles

I regret the strong words, hence the apology, but not the criticism
(critique)
and I feel a slight intimidatory tone in your suggestion. I am often made
to regret
making observations in different ways :-)

As I wrote to Axel in a private message (no secrets) myself I ll be happy
to  elaborate more formally given the opportunity to do so  The thread so
far has been the only way to engage on this topic

PDM

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 8:12 PM Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:

> Hi Paola,
>
> As you say, you are making comments that are clearly offending people.
> You have apologised for the offence or discomfort caused a number of times
> - and I interpret your apologies as being used in the sense of "regret".
> However I understand that you feel that you can do no other, as Luther
> might have said.
> Your views on the scholarship of the Seminar seem pretty clear to me, and
> further statements seem to achieve nothing.
> In these circumstances, I think it is best that you leave your comments on
> record, rather than keep repeating similar comments that offend, in
> differing ways, as you continue to do.
>
> With regard to your method, I have some concerns.
>
> Firstly, you say there is an "inadequate level of scholarship".
> Your conclusion is based on "the report (which  I agree is incomplete and
> partial account)".
> This seems to admit a woeful lack of evidence for you to make such a
> sweeping statement, which is clearly deeply insulting to any of the
> attendees who might consider themselves scholars..
>
> You might argue, I suppose, that the lack of a complete and comprehensive
> account is prima facie evidence of lack of scholarship - but I think that
> is a very weak argument to try and make.
> Does every coffee-room discussion betray a lack of scholarship?
>
> Secondly, you seem to keep coming back to the funding issue.
> You have a particular view of how publicly-funded research should be
> carried out.
> Not all would agree with that.
> It seems to me that the people who organise and run the Dagstuhl Seminars
> do not share your view of what should come out of the activity they choose
> to fund.
> They are very happy with their investment, it seems, as they have been
> funding it for almost 30 years.
> So in a market-driven world, the evidence is that the Seminars satisfy the
> needs of the buyer, and so a good transaction is taking place.
> It may not satisfy your needs, of course, but you are not particularly the
> purchaser the Seminars.
> Of course, in addition, there are complex questions of taxation and
> salaries - but in general, there is a socio-political system that has
> chosen to buy the Seminars.
> I am even left with the impression that your views of the Seminar would be
> different if it was not publicly-funded, and for example only attended by
> gentleman philosophers such as Charles Babbage and myself.
>
> Finally I also say that at least this small degree of diversity in the
> research landscape should be welcomed.
> Innovation does not flourish in a homogeneous world.
>
> Hugh
>
> <further_digression>
> There was a time when members of professions were expected to personally
> understand their role, and carry out the duties required to the best of
> their ability.
> And there was a level of trust from society that they would do so.
> Of course, I understand that the world has moved on since the 1960s.
> Often using theories from economics, driven by models from subjects such
> as Game Theory etc., the politicians have de-professionalised almost all
> professions (they failed with the lawyers, but that was predictable),
> Researchers and academics were part of this.
> So now every funded activity needs to be judged on the value of its
> outputs; and that judgement must happen to a short timescale too.
> Often this means that the unjudgeable, such as advancement of scholarship,
> or even scholarship itself, must be judged by judgeable proxies.
> This is not a good thing for a serious number of reasons, which are
> discussed extensively (but not enough) elsewhere.
> </further_digression>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 Aug 2019, at 07:45, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hugh, and all
> > This is how it came about:
> > I am researching the topic of KG/KR
> > and the report came up in searches, I remembered the thread and the trip
> report posts
> > on this list.  In fact I was hoping to links to the slides but no reply-
> > From what I have read (which may have been limited reflection of what
> what said/done)
> > key fundamental questions *that I am working on were not even remotely,
> and what was reported showed, in my view, an inadequate level of
> scholarship, based on the exceedingly range of challenges that KR/KG. What
> I read was trivial and superficial and sounded more like everyone had a
> party
> >  I expressed this sentiment with a follow up post in the thread.  I
> apologised for the offence cause (although arrogance is a token of exchange
> in academic circles I am not aware of anyone apologizing for being
> abominable either when authoring nor in peer reviewing). I am not trying to
> impose reporting requirements or anything.
> > John D:  of course, for people who have been drawing salaries from
> univerisitis and research all/most of their ilves, there is nothing wrong
> with it.   There is complacency and a lot of rubbish passes through the
> quality assessment of funded research. So yes on the one hand there
> measures in place to ensure adequacy, on the other hand there measures in
> place to demonstrating adquacy even in the case of sub standard outcomes)
> >
> > P
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:18 PM Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:
> > Sorry to go a bit off-list-topic, but I think that is where we have got
> to.
> > Although there is discussion of the nature of KR, KG, etc., the deeper
> issue here is about research culture, and the Schloss Dagstuhl seminars in
> particular; along with Paola's criticism of this one.
> >
> > I first went to one of these amazing meetings in 1990 (in fact it was
> only the third held there).
> > At that time, it was such a refreshing event to attend.
> > Already the cold wind of proposal gantt charts, outcomes, measurements,
> and mandating of practical results had blown through academia and research
> labs, so that the freedom of scholarship that such places had been built to
> nurture was well on the way to destruction.
> > And these requirements have been monotonic increasing since then.
> > So I can only imagine how exceptional a Dagstuhl seminar must feel for
> current academics.
> >
> > I was going to try to describe how they differ from workshops,
> conferences and research meeting, but that turns out to be a really big
> essay.
> > So I will spare myself that - and you, dear reader.
> >
> > However, what I want to do is firmly reject the suggestion in this
> thread that a research meeting should always have written outcomes.
> > >
> > > On 29 Aug 2019, at 01:21, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, Alex  Valentina and all, if I am allowed, the main criticism for
> me remains":
> > > ...
> > > 1. very limited publicly accessible proceedings for a publicly funded
> workshop (the report, which as you say is just a  short summary but no
> other more comprehensive resource is provided)
> > > ...
> > >
> >
> > In fact, looking at the web page for this meeting, I am even
> disappointed to see extensive reports from the break-out sessions.
> > No!
> > This meeting was just a community of scholars meeting together to try to
> understand a particular topic in which they were all interested.
> > A requirement to document that discussion is a distraction from the
> discussion, and makes it less productive.
> > Worse still, a requirement to produce an agreed outcome would seriously
> undermine the nature of the discussion.
> > And the need to produce such documents can discourage attendance, as
> they mean attendance may be a bigger commitment than otherwise, and the
> amount of time for proper discussion is reduced. The idea of a week away is
> challenging to busy researchers, so limiting the commitment to exactly that
> is very attractive.
> > An abstract from each speaker which can be written at the seminar (by
> hand?), indicating what views they may have, and what they spoke about
> seems perfectly adequate.
> >
> > Yes, if detailed reports and proposals and outcomes come naturally from
> the activity, that is helpful; but if there is no such thing, then that
> should be perfectly acceptable.
> >
> > Schloss Dagstuhl was, and still seems to be, a beacon of light in an
> otherwise dreary, paper-grinding, results-driven and -oriented research
> world.
> >
> > If only we could have a lot more like it, and even reflect more of it in
> our own institutions and funding councils.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > --
> > Hugh
> > 023 8061 5652
> >
> >
>
> --
> Hugh
> 023 8061 5652
>
>