W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bioschemas@w3.org > March 2018

Re: Abstract for UKON poster (about the specification)

From: ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 03:07:57 +0000
To: Carole Goble <carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: "Gray, Alasdair J G" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>, Philippe <proccaserra@gmail.com>, Justin Clark-Casey <justinccdev@gmail.com>, Peter McQuilton <peter.mcquilton@oerc.ox.ac.uk>, public-bioschemas@w3.org
Message-ID: <ab7490d54ac649460828667665edc3a2@ebi.ac.uk>
Hi all,

For the UKON submission, we have used the (hopefully) agreed solution of 
one author + "Bioschemas community". Being this a generic submission 
related to Bioschemas as a whole and just 300 words likely to be written 
just by one person, it makes sense.

What I have understood from the discussion is that for submissions about 
Bioschemas as whole, either "Bioschemas community" or a comprehensive 
list including all active participants in the community make sense. I 
guess the former can be used for minor/small submissions while the 
latter for more formal ones, e.g., journal submissions or main 
conferences with journal proceedings.

What about submissions related to Bioschemas but not strictly about 
Bioschemas?

For instance, Jane and John are interested in validation so they do some 
research regarding alternatives and analyze pros and cons. They want to 
submit this to a workshop/conference/somewhere. They plan to include a 
section using Bioschemas as a use case.

Another example, John and Jane have worked on the X-profile in 
Bioschemas, they are now ready to submit a publication about how it has 
been done and how it has worked in their group.

I would say both John and Jane should be explicit authors. What about 
the Bioschemas community here? What would be the 
recommendation/guidelines?

Best regards,

On 2018-03-01 20:31, Carole Goble wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> For the UKON, there is no associated proceedings, so can we go with
> the proposal of the person presenting and the Bioschemas Community?
> - I agree
> 
> for the journal publication then we will have a wide consultation and
> use some evidence of contribution (as we will need to supply this to
> the journal)  as a guide
> 
> Carole
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>>> On 1 Mar 2018, at 16:46, Philippe <proccaserra@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Justin, Leyla, Alasdair
>>> 
>>> Either of those solutions are good, and there is no discussion
>>> that Leyla should be the author for a submission presenting the
>>> bioschema protein component.
>>> For the UKON submission,   which is meant to introduce/present the
>>> whole bioschema efforts, i feel that having the lead of each group
>>> (http://bioschemas.org/groups/) acknowledged as author would be
>>> fairer on these people.
>>> If this is too long a list, then Justin's solution is straight to
>>> point and indeed shows that the work is done by a community, a
>>> group of like minded folks doing the leg work.
>> 
>> I think that Leyla’s point that it is useful for the event
>> organisers to have a point of contact and visible person at the
>> event is important.
>> 
>> For the UKON, there is no associated proceedings, so can we go with
>> the proposal of the person presenting and the Bioschemas Community?
>> 
>> For the planned journal paper we will consult widely for the
>> authorship list, but the intention is to involve everyone who has
>> contributed to the community.
>> 
>> We already had the issue of publications on the agenda for the next
>> management group meeting, but we will now extend this to cover
>> authorship issues as well.
>> 
>> Alasdair
>> 
>> I hope this clarifies my comment.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Philippe
>> 
>> On 01/03/2018 16:31, LJ Garcia Castro wrote:
>> 
>> I have also seen one explicit author (the submitter) or a few (those
>> directly contributing to the writing and the actual poster) and then
>> the community. the idea behind an explicit author is to make it
>> easier for people looking at the paper to address the person right
>> next to it.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> On 01/03/2018 16:28, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> 
>> An approach I've seen on some other papers is just to put "The
>> Bioschemas Community" as the single author with no named
>> individuals.  Perhaps this would also be suitable for a poster where
>> a list of official authors has not yet been agreed.
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:14 PM, LJ Garcia Castro
>> <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Pete, all,
>> 
>> Thanks for the comments and contributions.
>> 
>> Just for posters, just some few authors seem enough for me. However,
>> I am happy to add more as needed so I will go with any list of
>> authors agreed by the community. Could please Alasdair, Rafael or
>> Carole point to the official list of authors that should be used for
>> posters? Also, what would be page to use as a link to the community?
>> 
>> 
>> I need to submit tonight as tomorrow I am flying. So, I would be
>> grateful if you can provide that information as soon as possible.
>> 
>> If no agreement about authors is reached on time, should I better
>> stop the submission or submit as it is?
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> On 01/03/2018 14:52, Peter McQuilton wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Leyla,
>> 
>> I've added a few edits. I'm not sure about authorship though. The
>> abstract is pretty broad, so I wonder whether you shouldn't include
>> more authors from the other specifications as well. I know this came
>> up on Alasdair's abstract as well, and I have to say I agree with
>> Philippe's assertion that representatives from the other
>> specifications should also be included, along with (somewhere), a
>> link to the communities page listed all the contributors.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Pete
>> 
>> On 01/03/2018 10:49, LJ Garcia Castro wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> This [1] is the abstract I will submit to UKON corresponding to
>> Bioschemas specification. It is mainly based on the work carried
>> last year during the BioHackathon and later adopted during the
>> October Bioschemas meeting.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> [1]
>> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbYg7gk24s9kC33bELKulPMQL6OVtnBi8c1XPgQc6hs/edit#
>> [1]
>> 
>> --
>> Peter McQuilton, PhD
>> 
>> Project Coordinator
>> 
>> FAIRsharing.org [2]
>> 
>> Oxford e-Research Centre
>> 
>> University of Oxford
>> 
>> OX1 3QG, UK
>> International Society of Biocuration [3]
>> 
>> Skype: petemcquilton
>> 
>> Twitter: @drosophilic
>> 
>> ORCID: 0000-0003-2687-1982
> 
> Alasdair J G Gray
> 
>  Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
> Assistant Professor in Computer Science,
> School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
> (Athena SWAN Bronze Award)
> Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh UK.
> 
> Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk
> Web: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ajg33 [4]
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872
> Office: Earl Mountbatten Building 1.39
> Twitter: @gray_alasdair
> 
>  Untitled Document
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> _HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY IS THE TIMES & THE SUNDAY TIMES INTERNATIONAL
> UNIVERSITY OF THE YEAR 2018_
> 
> Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With
> campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world,
> delivering innovation and educational excellence in business,
> engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences.
> 
> This email is generated from the Heriot-Watt University Group, which
> includes:
> 
>  	* Heriot-Watt University, a Scottish charity registered under number
> SC000278
>  	* Edinburgh Business School a Charity Registered in Scotland,
> SC026900. Edinburgh Business School is a company limited by guarantee,
> registered in Scotland with registered number SC173556 and registered
> office at Heriot-Watt University Finance Office, Riccarton, Currie,
> Midlothian, EH14 4AS
>  	* Heriot- Watt Services Limited (Oriam), Scotland's national
> performance centre for sport. Heriot-Watt Services Limited is a
> private limited company registered is Scotland with registered number
> SC271030 and registered office at Research & Enterprise Services
> Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS.
> 
> The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are
> not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
> (including any attachments) from your system.
> 
> --
> Professor Carole Goble CBE FREng FBCS CITP
> School of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> Manchester, UK
> 
> tel: +44 161 275 6195
> email: carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk
> twitter: @CaroleAnneGoble
> PA: Melanie Price <melanie.j.price@manchester.ac.uk>
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: I no longer work weekends. You will not get a response.
> 
> email etiquette:
> I get a lot of email and when I travel it gets even more backed up.
> 
> - Don't get too upset if my replies are short (see
> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1047)
> - If you don't get a reply within 48 hours there is a good chance the
> email has scrolled into the distance. If its urgent try again or email
> melanie.price@manchester.ac.uk.
> If you haven't heard within a week you really should try again.
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbYg7gk24s9kC33bELKulPMQL6OVtnBi8c1XPgQc6hs/edit#
> [2] https://fairsharing.org/
> [3] https://biocuration.org/
> [4] http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/%7Eajg33
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 03:08:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:03 UTC