Re: With footnotes (was Re: Open Access to Journal of Web Semantics (JWS))

On 2017-08-09 14:25, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Congrats for that getting this nearly open access policy. My opinion is
> that this is about as much as we can expect from for-profit academic
> publishers, and I would like to congratulate Ian and the rest for
> getting these concessions out of Elsevier. So, I can go back to
> reviewing for this journal - and I do think high quality peer review is
> important, and see good reason for keeping it anonymized.
> 
> In terms of the rest of the complaints, it should be obvious the
> academic publishing world is for profit with all that entails.
> Nonetheless, this is better than 99% of the rest.
> 
> In terms of RDF dogfooding, there are unsolved  practical problems
> ranging from the failure of MathML in modern browsers (i.e. why
> scientific publishing uses LaTeX) to the long history of having
> difficulty with RDF uptake in general. I wish good luck to anyone trying
> to solve these problems that have been outstanding for about two decades. 
> 
> If one doesn't use mathematics or academic peer revuew, and wants to
> experiment with the magic of RDF, perhaps digfooding a blog is more
> productive than complaining about CFPs. Once a great system works and is
> production ready, I am sure there would be a sympathetic response from
> academics and publishers. 
> 
>    Yours,
>       Harry


You can ignore
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2017Aug/0011.html as
you like to fit your agenda. In the meantime, go ahead and obey what the
for-profit tells you, and do not question "authority".

For those that are not content with the status quo, or are not satisfied
with "that's just how things are" (tm), they have a more exciting future
ahead. And, we are working on building that instead of being passive or
dismissing others for trying.

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