Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

On Wednesday 30. March 2016 10.19.51 Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> > +1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben
> > sugested) I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies
> > have a suitable schema for CfPs.
> 
> Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text email works just
> fine.

I disagree, and the evidence is in the archives of these lists. To non-
academics, most of these lists are just spam.

Seriously, if we can't dogfood something that can match a paper to a 
venue, then how can we ever pretend to solve anybody else's problems?

Emails of plain text is just terrible, and what we see are that they are 
sent several times to all the lists the author could get their hands on. 
Why? Obviously because it is a terribly inefficient method of communication! 
And what is the effect on the community? We rarely see discussion going on 
on semantic-web any longer, again obviously one of the reasons is that the 
CfP spam has scared many of the hackers away.

The academic semweb community needs to solve this problem, so that CfPs 
become a thing of the past. Conferences should published structured 
information on the Web, and authors should have mechanisms to search for 
appropriate venues for their work, e.g. by creating a client that will 
create a digest of a paper and match that to published calls. How about a 
series of Challenges on ISWC and ESWC to establish this?

Until that has been established, I support that structured CfPs may be 
sent to semantic-web only, and be banned from other lists. People who are 
active contributors to other lists may of course send a targetted heads-up 
to the lists where they are active. If your workshop is about evolution of 
SPARQL, obviously sparql-dev is an appropriate venue to discuss the 
workshop.

Cheers,

Kjetil

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 22:47:15 UTC