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

Re: [CfP] VOILA 2017 @ ISWC 2017 - 3rd Workshop on Visualization and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 11:45:39 +0200
To: Valentina Ivanova <valentina.ivanova@liu.se>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-semweb-ui@w3.org" <public-semweb-ui@w3.org>, "sais-members@lists.lysator.liu.se" <sais-members@lists.lysator.liu.se>, "dl@dl.kr.org" <dl@dl.kr.org>
Message-ID: <063ccb3f-9956-3e1b-671d-eeefe2eaee77@csarven.ca>
On 2017-05-05 22:04, Valentina Ivanova wrote:
> Paper submission and reviewing for this workshop will be electronic
> via EasyChair. The papers should be written in English, following the
> Springer LNCS format, and be submitted in PDF on or before July 21,
> 2017.

Hi Valentina,

I find the submission guidelines of this workshop to be super awkward.
Has the organising committee considered to pay-it-forward by making it
possible for its *clientele* to make their contributions via formats
that are native to the Web? In contrast to what the workshop is
currently promoting and setting constraints with desktop/print centric
formats like PDF. Certainly Springer LNCS's view is inappropriate to box
all content into one size fits all. Do we use a single visualisation
method for all data?

Is the workshop's clientele not up to par to represent, publish and
disseminate their knowledge via native Web standards? Would you consider
the possibility that perhaps this workshop should take the
responsibility to enable and encourage such behaviour? Is there anything
the workshop requires to make this a reality? Are you open to it?

Imagine what type of visualisations would be possible based on its own
academic output. Here are some basic examples for whatever it is worth:

An article with accompanying citations, annotations, arguments etc:
https://twitter.com/csarven/status/844507280330641408

Complete output of statements and interlinks among different types of
articles (spec, test report, academic article, implementation). See thread:
https://twitter.com/csarven/status/834730892027424768

hasPart/citations among three articles from different domains:
https://twitter.com/csarven/status/831181624310132736

reply_of/has_reply at csarven.ca:
https://twitter.com/csarven/status/828767664831098880
...


Contrast that with how far dead-weight PDFs gets us.

Care to help make this happen?

https://twitter.com/csarven/status/861507593260457984

:)

Would you consider thinking in terms of *articles* instead of *papers*?

http://csarven.ca/web-science-from-404-to-200#s-paper-article

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 09:46:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 May 2017 09:46:45 UTC