W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2014

Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:54:51 -0700
Message-ID: <5432D76B.5000404@gmail.com>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
CC: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C LOD Mailing List <public-lod@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
I don't think that scanning a printout retains any metadata that was in the 
electronic source so, no, this would not follow using the same logic.

I do agree that dissemination of results is one of the most important parts of 
the scientific process.  The argument here is, I think, what is the best way 
to support dissemination.

Eating your own dog food, is a separate matter, I think.  Eating your own dog 
good may help with uptake, but on the other hand it may interfere with 
dissemination, by making preparation of papers harder or making them harder to 
review or read.


On 10/06/2014 10:09 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> Following the same logic, we still could have been using paper
> submissions? All you have to do is to scan them to turn them into
> PDFs.
> It's been a while since I was in the university, but wasn't
> dissemination an important part of science? What about "dogfooding"
> after all?
> Martynas
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not hard to query PDFs with SPARQL.  All you have to do is extract the
>> metadata from the document and turn it into RDF, if needed.  Lots of
>> programs extract and display this metadata already.
>> No, I don't think that viewing this issue from the reviewer perspective is
>> too narrow.  Reviewers form  a vital part of the scientific publishing
>> process. Anything that makes their jobs harder or the results that they
>> produce worse is going to have to have very large benefits over the current
>> setup.  In any case, I haven't been looking at the reviewer perspective
>> only, even in the message quoted below.
>> peter
>> PS:  This is *not* to say that I think that the reviewing process is
>> anywhere near ideal.  On the contrary, I think that the reviewing process
>> has many problems, particularly as it is performed in CS conferences.
>> On 10/06/2014 09:19 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>> Dear Peter,
>>> please show me how to query PDFs with SPARQL. Then I'll believe there
>>> are no benefits of XHTML+RDFa over PDF.
>>> Addressing the issue from the reviewer perspective only is too narrow,
>>> don't you think?
>>> Martynas

Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 17:55:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:25 UTC