- From: Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:28:56 +0000
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com>
- CC: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, "LOD List" <public-lod@w3.org>
One thought is a dedicated W3C announcement list, e.g., SemWeb-LD-Announce@w3.org, or something similar. Thanks, Leo >-----Original Message----- >From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verborgh@ugent.be] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:19 AM >To: Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com> >Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>; >LOD List <public-lod@w3.org> >Subject: Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers > >Dear all, > >Thanks Phil for bringing up this debate. >I agree with Axel about the list being a natural place. > >However, I think we need something else: >a clear guideline for efficient CfPs. >Too often, CfPs look like the braindump >of 10 different people all mixed together. >The more information it contains, >the better the sender seems to think it is. >Except that it's not. >(Not to mention the obligatory apologies > on top, which only annoy people more.) > >If we mail around CfPs, they should be efficient; >having a suggested template would really help. >As far as I'm concerned, a CfP only contains: >- who should submit and why >- the title and place >- dates (deadline / event) >- URL for all info >All other details are irrelevant at first. >Just 1 screen-no scrolling-instead of 10. > >By making CfPs more efficient, >they also become more useful for readers, >and hence much more of an added value >to subscribers than they are now. > >Best, > >Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 16:29:30 UTC