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

On 2017-08-07 12:47, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> 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.

The publishers agenda: increase profit margin. Its consequences are what
the researchers and citizens pay for in sociotechnical terms in the
meantime.

So, I don't actually view the publishers as an "enemy". I just think
they are insignificant. We should invest our energy towards building and
using solutions that we actually need.

>> 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.


Thank you for your commitment and achievements.

If you don't mind, I'd like to dig further, my reply:

* http://csarven.ca/web-science-from-404-to-200#semantic-web-journal
*
http://csarven.ca/web-science-from-404-to-200#semant-web-dog-food-and-scholarlydata

Bottom line: we are in 2017 and the Semantic Web community is still
being told to use desktop/print options. There is nothing above and
beyond some metadata (eg title, authors, abstract, document-centric
references?..) to takeaway. How do I find something interesting or
non-trivial?

Is this still relevant:
https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#Universality ?

What's the canonical or the authoritative URI for the works?

What would it take SWJ to welcome contributions that are represented in
native Web formats, and even published at personal or institution
Webspaces as the canonical representations? I've asked SWJ this in the
past, but didn't receive a response, so I'm asking again in mid 2017. Is
there a plan that's documented and publicly accessible? As far as truly
"eating our own dogfood", what changed since SWJ's existence (2009?) How
can we communicate our work any different today?

Will 2018 be the year for the "Semantic" "Web" scholars?

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