Re: Publication of scientific research (was: CfP: 3rd International Workshop on Linked Science 2013 (LISC2013))

other formats should be accepted, more so in this specific type of
conferences. how is the PDF supporting linked data? as far as I know
part of the problem is precisely that content is locked up in PDF
documents, hardly a case for linked data.

Last year at sepublica we had a smilar discussion. an ontology was
submitted, no PDF just the ontology. We decided to accept the ontology
as a valid submission. we did request the authors to add some human
readable documentation, but in essence our decision was that the
ontology as such was a valid submission.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> On 04/23/2013 11:52 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>
>> As an organizer of both this workshop and one called the Beyond the
>> PDF force11.org/beyondthepdf2 - I'll respond.
>>
>> There's nothing particularly wrong with PDF as a means of
>> encapsulating human readable information so asking for submissions
>> this way seems suitable. (Yes there are downsides to the format and
>> maybe we would should be more liberal in terms of formats). pdf also
>> has facilities for embedding metadata in rdf.
>
>
> Make is so!?
>
> What's stopping the conference/workshop organizers from making that change?
> Why not the other way around?
>
> If the organizers request the research work to be submitted using Web native
> technologies e.g., (X)HTML, CSS, JavaScript, MathML, SVG, and yes, RDF, what
> do you think will happen?
>
> Make the change and people will follow like they always do. How am I so sure
> about that? Because authors want to get their degrees and/or recognized in
> the field. So, they'll do what's necessary.
>
> The point is that, you have some responsibility - pardon me for saying that,
> but I can't resist - to ask for the works in Web friendly formats as the
> primary format.
>
> What I imagine will happen is that, in the short term, some people are going
> to whine about it because it is not what they are used. Boohoo; computers
> are hard. They want to continue writing /paragraph instead of <p> (to put it
> in a nutshell).
>
>> I would hope that the submissions to the workshop are the text around
>> lots of links to both source code repositories and linked data
>> sources - that's the true test
>
>
> I beg to differ. I think folks are interested in different things. I'm sure
> you would agree that there is a lot of value in research analysis for
> different parties. For example, I want to write a query to compare the
> claims (findings, or results) of different research that's conducted. Among
> many insights that one could obtain, gathering statistical data on that
> tells me what we are doing, how fast we are going, and where to focus next
> etc. How do we do that in PDF again (or from the hacked up RDF metadata
> within)? We have the technologies at our disposal, yet, for all intents and
> purposes we are going in the opposite direction and making it more difficult
> than necessary to do some "Linked Science" and alike.
>
> Paul, I'm not singling you (or other organizers) out - and like many, I
> respect your contributions. We have a recurring issue at hand (at least in
> my eyes; as I sound like an old broken record in these mailing lists) in the
> Semantic Web / Linked Data community. And, the hold-back is not only from
> conferences/workshops. Authors in this community need to take responsibility
> and make their contributions by eating their own dogfood (or well, the Web
> standards that they buy in to). Supervisors, academia, or funding bodies
> should be encouraging the same efforts. That's when we are all on the same
> page.
>
> If you want to make a change, make it so! You don't need anyone's
> permission. :)
>
> -Sarven
>



-- 
Alexander Garcia
http://www.alexandergarcia.name/
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 09:03:24 UTC