W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2017

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

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:47:53 +0200
To: Alexander Garcia Castro <alexgarciac@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@stanford.edu>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
Message-ID: <4eb03dba-fc92-31d8-8584-2c7dcb97c218@ucsb.edu>
On 08/07/2017 12:19 PM, Alexander Garcia Castro wrote:
> Krzysztof , why is this picture of the publishing industry inaccurate? 
> there must be some truth there because it is not just Sarven  the one 
> with this perception -others are, however, less vociferous. Maybe we 
> need less political correctness with businesses that provide a service 
> to us (the message being we can remove/change them) and more 
> rightfulness with the community of researchers as a whole.

Because the 'publishing industry' is not our enemy. The relation between 
the publishing industry and science is very complex with beneficiaries 
from both sides and a careful balance that we have to strike and 
renegotiate as time progresses. This relationship goes back more than 
300 years. If we paint a one-sided image of this relation, we are not 
doing ourselves a favor. Instead, we should work with them to actively 
shape this relationship. In many domains such as Computer Science, the 
publishing industry's role is declining (which I believe is good) and 
this puts us into a unique position and explains the rapid development 
within the industry. Calling the behavior of one side shameful (and 
their work junk) is not what one would call an invitation.

> As a disclaimer: I dont receive any money from the publishing 
> industry. I am not an editor for any journal and at this moment I dont 
> have any business relation with the publishing industry other than 
> paying APCs for something that I really dont understand what am I 
> paying for.

I am an editor of a journal and I work with the publishing industry and 
I believe in understanding an industry before criticizing them. So far, 
Pascal Hitzler and I have fostered open and transparent reviews, open 
access to manuscripts in all stages, open and free *full *metadata, and 
Linked Data usage by said industry. I believe that this a more fruitful 
way to bringing change.


> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu 
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote:
>     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
>         <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://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-58068-5_33>
>         * http://csarven.ca/linked-data-notifications
>         <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
>             <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/
>         <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
>             <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 <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
>     Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
>     Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>     <http://www.semantic-web-journal.net>
> -- 
> Alexander Garcia
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Garcia
> http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac

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 10:48:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:51 UTC