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

I dont mean to say that this is the solution but I certainly believe this
is a step forward in walking the walk.

the idea is simple, there are pre prints for communities, arxiv is one
where computer scientists have also been submitting. now, because it is
wide in scope it makes it hard for the community to consider it a community
resource. why dont we setup and run a pre print server for sw and ontos.

I recently came across a new service being offered by the Center for Open
Science, https://cos.io/our-products/osf-preprints/ <
https://cos.io/our-products/osf-preprints/>

<https://cos.io/our-products/osf-preprints/> They host preprint servers for
free. They take care of the technology and the hardware. On the tech side,
they run the server, admin it, and provide all the tech stack that is
needed for starting and maintaining a pre print server. They dont charge
for hardware. if we want to experiment we can easily do so because the
software stack is open and they are also open to innovation.

Those partnering with them in running a pre print server have to take care
of building the community.

would you like to join me in the steering committee for this endeavor?
 Needless
to say that if it doesn't work we anyway dont lose anything -other than our
time and shattered dreams (if we still have anything close to it).

if you have questions let me know; below a brief FAQ.


        - what is their "business" model (if any)?  = what do they gain
with the free service they provide?

COS is a non profit, funded by several foundations.



        - how big is expected to be the community that needs to be built?

no expectations at this point because this is the first time they (COS) are
doing this.



        - how much time/effort you estimate the steering committee would
need to invest?

that depends on each one of us and how we plan the activities. the steering
committee should spread the word so that people submit their pre prints.
this is the fundamental activity, there is no other hands on activity, no
technical involvement of any kind. we will also have to approach journals
and conferences so that they encourage authors to submit to this pre print
server


        - how many members should be part of this steering committee?

no limit. but usually u have anywhere between 10 to 15



        - How many members/researchers should get enrolled?

as many as possible but this depends on researchers submitting their pre
prints. bear in mind this is a pre print service so the involvement of
researchers is very specific.


        - Is there any IP aspect to take into account/discuss with COS?

no, everything is open. they provide the code, infrastructure ,etc so no IP
issues here.


        - Do you have an example of such a community? (that is ideally
active).

well, as a pre print service the best example would be https://arxiv.org <
https://arxiv.org/>  but this is a bit different because they have to take
care of running their own infrastructure. in this case COS would taking
care of that.


        - is there any similar solution/service/server already initiated by
others?

No that I know of. there is agrixiv that is a preprint for papers in
agriculture.  in our case we want to be specific -semantic web and
ontologies


        - what are the timelines and milestones you would see in this
setting up in COS?

not that I am aware of. as I said before, this is the first time they are
doing this so little experience from both sides.


        - Who else would be in the steering committee? is the only
organisational group that is needed?

|we should have a steering committee, how many? no more than 15 and no less
than 7 AFAIK. However, these are just my numbers because COS doesnt have a
minimum or max number for this.


        - what would be the first results we might expect to get if we bet
for it?

get people to know the service and submit.



        - do we have an initial set of papers that we could populate into
it?

we should, we should have an initial set of people submitting their papers
so that it does not start empty. but the number is low, 10. so nothing that
we cant do.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
wrote:

> I guess I am totally missing the point (and sorry for that) but I do not
> understand why this is about HTML versus LaTeX instead of being about
> different paradigms of academic publishing. These two issues are related
> but not the same. I want to change scientific publishing in terms of the
> workflows, not the representation layer.
>
> Jano
>
> So, I don't actually view the publishers as an "enemy". I just think
>> they are insignificant.
>>
>
> I don't agree but that is probably a non-technical and not SW related
> discussion.
>
>
> On 08/07/2017 01:30 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
> --
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Alexander Garcia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Garcia
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac