Re: DISCLAIMER (was Re: [CfP] Journal of Web Semantics (JWS) - Special Issue on Ontology Engineering)

On 08/07/2017 11:34 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
> On 2017-08-05 12:59, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> While normally I consider the desire to publish scientific papers in
>> HTML as quite silly given the lack of support of MathML by major
>> browsers and the need to use LateX in computer science,
> Grab coffee.
>
> I think that this is not a showstopper because the alternative is not:
>
> * resort to LaTeX/Word..
> * resort to handing publicly funded work to a company

This has nothing to do with LaTeX versus HTML.

> * resort to paying fees to get access back to the work

Same here.

> * resort to numbing Web researchers from using the native Web stack
>
> Again, that's precisely what the Web Semantics journal is doing and
> encouraging. Shameful.

This kind of strong wording is damaging your mission. It also paints an 
inaccurate picture of the publishing industry.


Best,
Krzysztof



>
> The fact of the matter is that, if researchers agree on the final goal
> of using the native Web stack, and controlling their own work, there are
> options however imperfect: MathML, MathJax ( https://www.mathjax.org/ ),
> Web fonts, SVG, bitmap images, Flash (not a real suggestion), a photo of
> whiteboard or handwritten equations, and more. We can nitpick the whole
> day on any given approach, but the bottom line is that it can be
> achieved and still reasonable - I'll get back to this in a moment.
>
> If those options are still inadequate, and if the goal still remains to
> open up and make the best of the Web, people can dedicate energy to
> improve the state of the art. It would be absurd to think that we are
> indefinitely stuck with LaTeX for mathematics on the Web.
>
> So, we don't just throw our hands up in the air and walk away - at the
> same time throwing the whole academic community under the bus - just
> because some Web tech is imperfect, and might as well resort to LaTeX.
>
> We improve the Web because we are idealists. We join standards
> organisations or create communities to address the shortcomings - just
> as we have in the past.
>
> Springer can't even manage to display code blocks in their HTML copies.
> Literally uses *gif* of a PDF (or something) rendering eg:
>
> https://static-content.springer.com/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-319-58068-5_33/MediaObjects/449646_1_En_33_Figb_HTML.gif
>
> That is a major joke!
>
> If Springer, with all the funding at their disposal decides to create a
> gif of a script block from a LaTeX source, and deemed it to be
> "acceptable" (by their standards at least) in academic articles, we can
> apply the same line of reasoning and do it ourselves. Pure and simple.
> Compare what you get out of the box:
>
> * http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-58068-5_33
> * http://csarven.ca/linked-data-notifications
>
> It makes zero sense to pay these companies from public funds to reduce
> the quality of the representations/semantics, interactive components..
> regardless of if they get LaTeX or even HTML.
>
> What they generate is bare minimum junk in comparison to what the
> authors can express; multimodal, semantic, social, decentralised
> solutions with some commitment to interop on the Web.
>
> Hence, I reject the general line of argument: "x is not perfect,
> therefore let's instead p00p on the Web".
>
>> I agree the
>> scientific community - especially the Semantic Web community, a
>> community in theory devoted to open data - should refuse to publish or
>> review in Elsevier journals given their particularly atrocious track
>> record, including support of SOPA/PIPA etc. in the past:
>>
>> For more, see the Elsevier boycott:
>> http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_publishing_reform
> And something a bit more recent and concrete, "at the end of 2017, the
> following bodies announced that they would no longer extend their
> contract with Elsevier":
>
> https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2017/
>
>> Note in response to the boycott, Elsevier now has open access journals.
>> Obviously the Web Semantics journal could become an Open Access journal:
>>
>> https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/open-access-journals
>>
>> Why is it not?
> Possibly because APC model requires authors/public institutions to feed
> even more money (on top of what their libraries pay for instance) into
> the scholarly system, and so the editors of the journal may have figured
> that would not be feasible - or maybe it just didn't even occur to them.
> In any case, getting the money out of the system is a "goal", so just
> taking OA approach for the sake of it is not solving anything.
>
> Moreover, even if gold/green OA was in place, it still doesn't address
> the disclaimer point on crafting multimodal research objects, ie. the
> bar is still set to their content/data publishing pipeline - which is
> archaic as it gets.
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>

-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 09:57:36 UTC