- From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:52:18 +0100
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
What I'd suggest for conference organisers is something like the following: 1. Keep the PDF as the main thing, as it's not going anywhere soon. 3. Also allow submission in some alternative form, including semantic content, and have the conference run a competition for alternative publishing forms - including voting by delegates on what they like and what they want. this could promote such alternative forms and offer a migration route over time. Robert. On 07/10/2014 13:27, Phillip Lord wrote: > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes: >> So, you believe that there is an excellent set of tools for preparing, >> reviewing, and reading scientific publishing. >> >> Package them up and make them widely available. If they are good, people will >> use them. >> >> Convince those who run conferences. If these people are convinced, then they >> will allow their use in conferences or maybe even require their use. > Is that not the point of the discussion? > > Unfortuantely, we do not know why ISWC and ESWC insist on PDF. > >> I'm not convinced by what I'm seeing right now, however. > Sure, but at least the discussion has meant that you have looked at some > of the tools again. That's no bad thing. > > My question would be, are more convinced than you were last time you > looked or less? > > Phil > > -- Professor Robert Stevens Bio-health Informatics Group School of Computer Science University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester United Kingdom M13 9PL Robert.Stevens@Manchester.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6251 Blog: http://robertdavidstevens.wordpress.com Web: http://staff.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~stevensr/ KBO
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:52:46 UTC