W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:29:42 -0800
Message-ID: <4B7B3876.5030806@topquadrant.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Axel Polleres wrote:
> e.g. pro: ... e.g. W3C specs *do* undergo a quite rigid review cycle, probably more rigid than most scientific publications do!

I was thinking about this a bit more ...

W3C review tends to improve the recs; but some academic reviews have 
been very very helpful to my research and somehow formed me more.

For example, there was a negative review of:
(crucial for making RDF test cases work)
which said it was syntactic and not semantic,
which is true enough ... but that comment was well-articulated and made 
me think about why I thought the paper was important.
I changed the top-and-tail and it got accepted next time round.
But somehow the review educated me ... more so than most W3C reviews. 
(Except perhaps some comments from DanC).

I had another negative review of my triangles work ... I think this paper:
that led to several years of work ...

But for careful and precise word-smithing, academic review has nothing 
on a review from a rival WG

I guess I was disappointed that my paper on ARP got rejected, for 
similar reasons to the graph isomorphism paper, and I never got the 
energy together to argue that it was the important piece of work that I 
knew it was :)
I think those reviewers were just wrong! (but don't we all say that sort 
of thing)
(it's strange that I've gone back 9 or 10 years for all those examples)

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 00:31:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:16 UTC