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

Ying Ding wrote:
> Yes, I agree that in order to get a really good overview of the 
> semantic web community, we need to look at broader range of 
> publications, such as DBLP, Arnetminer, Google Scholars. But believe 
> it or not, the formal judge of the scholarly contribution (especially 
> for tenure promotions), most of the universities took Scopus and Web 
> Of Science (WOS) really serious. You cannot go for tenure just by 
> writing many good emails, or W3C technical reports.
>
> Yes, citation can be bias and this debate has been there for decades, 
> but WOS is still dominating the world of scholarly communication. 
> Journal editors are still proud of their high Impact Factors (no 
> matter what). Students might be obliged to cite their supervisor's 
> papers, but that will not bring you to the top of the top based on 
> hundreds of thousands of citations.
>
> I will love to collaborate with people who wants to do a thorough 
> evaluation of the semantic web field as i think it is a high time to 
> do this and we need this in order to know the current status of our 
> community. Like Information Retrieval (SIGIR), Database (VLDB, SIGMOD) 
> or Data mining (SIGKDD) area, they are all well established with their 
> own conferences, top journals, and field medals. I think it is time 
> for us to establish such for our Semantic Web Community.
>
> best
> ying
Ying,

Irrespective, don't you think HTML or even better an RDF (re. your data 
sources) would be sort of congruent with this entire effort? Dan and 
others could have just slotted URIs into the RDF etc.. and the resource 
could just grow and evenly rid itself of its current contextual 
short-comings etc..

Sorry (for grumpy sounding comment), but PDFs really get under my skin 
as sole mechanism for transmitting data when conversation is about the 
Semantic Web Project etc.. Sadly, this realm is rife with PDF as sole 
information delivery mechanism, even when the conversation is actually 
about the "Web" (a medium not constructed around Linked PDF documents).

Kingsley
>
> Jeremy Carroll 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
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Received on Saturday, 13 February 2010 20:20:26 UTC