Re: Transparent and/or anonymous attribution in scholarly communication

On 2016-11-09 17:03, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> Hmm, can you clarify the relation between your post on academic
> reviewing styles and the topic of this (technical) Semantic Web mailing
> list?

Krzysztof,

tl;dr: Some subscribers of this mailing list are Web Scientists, and 
they author and review articles. The poll is an attempt to collect some 
data in response to the given statement, and then to share the results. 
I'll do my best to make the relations more clear in the future.


I think your implied valid topics for this mailing list goes beyond the 
"technical" aspects of the Semantic Web. The mailing list has and 
continues to include a wide range of discussions, for example, but not 
limited to social and philosophical underpinnings of the Web and its 
implications thereof. The area of Web Science happens to be one of them, 
where the content of my email which I believe situates itself. At least 
that was the intention.

While my email didn't glaringly call out for "Semantic" and/or "Web", it 
linked to a URL which includes the term "Linked Research" in its path. 
Admittedly, this may or may not mean much, or even be considered as 
appropriate for this list. I can certainly see why that may have 
prompted your inquiry, so rest assure that, if you visit the URL, it is 
from an account holder that uses the following text/hashtags in its profile:

#LinkedResearch #LinkedData #OpenAccess #OpenScience #WebScience 
#SemanticWeb #Decentralization #ControlYourself #Dogfooding #ParadigmShift

with a link to https://linkedresearch.org/

where you can find out more information.

So, that's pretty much the context. I assume that it is reasonable to 
infer that "Linked Research" probably has something to do with "Semantic 
Web", and not be subject to much inspection. If this is indeed your 
first time coming across this initiative, I invite you to investigate it 
further, and encourage you to join and help shape it.

Having said that, if my email is inappropriate in any way, 1) please 
accept my sincere apologies, and 2) I'd like to have something on record 
indicating why that is the case. Moreover, I'm happy to comply with some 
further guidelines if W3C likes to put them in place. Phil, would you 
like to chime in (aka babysit us)?

And on that final note, I think a separate email thread would be most 
appropriate for this to further investigate what constitutes "technical" 
for the Semantic Web mailing list. Krzysztof, may I encourage you start 
that off? I'll follow-up with an examination on the appropriateness of 
"CFP" emails that are coming to this mailing list so that we stay true 
to "the topic of this (technical) Semantic Web mailing list". Off the 
top of my head, some ideas are to see whether emails should encourage 
(if not informally demand):

* technically inclined Semantic Web folks to communicate and disseminate 
their knowledge using technologies and standards that have absolutely 
nothing to do with the Semantic Web.

* centralisation as well as complete submission of public funding and 
works to third parties that the organisers/conferences/journals have 
associated themselves with one way or another.

Some say that that's all absurd or even a scandal, but why don't we 
leave those bits to that thread?

It is all intertwined, but I hope I've addressed your inquiry :)

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 21:35:48 UTC