Re: Off topic - Dagstuhl and research in general - was Re: Trip Reports on Dagstuhl Seminar on Knowledge Graphs

John and all
(Axel I ll reply to you offlilst!)

I apologised already for the brashness of the remarks, the criticism
however stands
and strongly supported. Even people in the consortium may agree,
however they cannot say, because the would get the sack and and you clearly
prove, they would not be invited nor engaged with

It is with threat of disparagement that keeps otherwise intelligent
scholars behaving like sheep.
Anyone who does not think so, or with their scholarship could shed light on
the fallacies
are definitely not welcome.

Yes of course, Aldo,I just realised how pointless this exchange is

I am looking for answers in scientific papers, fact is
that the workshops although in broad strokes. outlines the future research
agenda being done by a publicly funded consortium with public money.
This is the future for all of us guys, not just those who are invited.

Based on the report (which  I agree is incomplete and partial account) what
I have seen
is not up to scratch, in terms of depth, accuracy and fit for purposes
in relation to bigger real world challenges and the state of art in KR
It's just an opinion, and I read  a lot of good stuff receiving harsher
reviews.
Having realised how a candid opinion can be unconfortable, I apologize once
again

Research in KR is being rehashed poorly.  It is not an accusation to
anyone, it is
a professional opinion about the state of the art, and I appreciate the
opportunity to share it.

The problem is that complacent and lagging bits of academia, funders do not
like to be criticised, especially not in public, It is the lack of public
critique of research direction
that leads to limited/poor outcomes

I agree to disagree, which is what scholarship is all about, isnt it?

I suspect my popularity rating with this list has gone down a further notch
now

PDM

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:20 PM John.Domingue <john.domingue@open.ac.uk>
wrote:

> We will just have to agree to disagree Paola, to be frank I find your
> overall attitude very poor and not one that I would like to engage with in
> any way.
>
>
>
> There’s a **big** difference between a private frank face-to-face/email
> discussion discussing the merits or not of scientific work and publicising
> to the broad community:
>
>
>
> “ineptitude, inadequacy and corruption”
>
>
>
> For an event where we know that all the organisers have put in significant
> effort.
>
>
>
> The majority of researchers I work with are fundamentally driven by making
> a positive contribution to academia and beyond. Like others I struggle to
> see any positive contribution from your emails. Broad negative statements
> berating colleagues or entire communities are never helpful and I think it
> would be best all round if you now stopped.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 30 August 2019 at 07:45
> *To: *Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
> *Cc: *Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Off topic - Dagstuhl and research in general - was Re:
> Trip Reports on Dagstuhl Seminar on Knowledge Graphs
> *Resent-From: *<semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Friday, 30 August 2019 at 07:46
>
>
>
> Hugh, and all
>
> This is how it came about:
>
> I am researching the topic of KG/KR
>
> and the report came up in searches, I remembered the thread and the trip
> report posts
>
> on this list.  In fact I was hoping to links to the slides but no reply-
>
> From what I have read (which may have been limited reflection of what what
> said/done)
>
> key fundamental questions *that I am working on were not even remotely,
> and what was reported showed, in my view, an inadequate level of
> scholarship, based on the exceedingly range of challenges that KR/KG. What
> I read was trivial and superficial and sounded more like everyone had a
> party
>
>  I expressed this sentiment with a follow up post in the thread.  I
> apologised for the offence cause (although arrogance is a token of exchange
> in academic circles I am not aware of anyone apologizing for being
> abominable either when authoring nor in peer reviewing). I am not trying to
> impose reporting requirements or anything.
>
> John D:  of course, for people who have been drawing salaries from
> univerisitis and research all/most of their ilves, there is nothing wrong
> with it.   There is complacency and a lot of rubbish passes through the
> quality assessment of funded research. So yes on the one hand there
> measures in place to ensure adequacy, on the other hand there measures in
> place to demonstrating adquacy even in the case of sub standard outcomes)
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:18 PM Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry to go a bit off-list-topic, but I think that is where we have got to.
> Although there is discussion of the nature of KR, KG, etc., the deeper
> issue here is about research culture, and the Schloss Dagstuhl seminars in
> particular; along with Paola's criticism of this one.
>
> I first went to one of these amazing meetings in 1990 (in fact it was only
> the third held there).
> At that time, it was such a refreshing event to attend.
> Already the cold wind of proposal gantt charts, outcomes, measurements,
> and mandating of practical results had blown through academia and research
> labs, so that the freedom of scholarship that such places had been built to
> nurture was well on the way to destruction.
> And these requirements have been monotonic increasing since then.
> So I can only imagine how exceptional a Dagstuhl seminar must feel for
> current academics.
>
> I was going to try to describe how they differ from workshops, conferences
> and research meeting, but that turns out to be a really big essay.
> So I will spare myself that - and you, dear reader.
>
> However, what I want to do is firmly reject the suggestion in this thread
> that a research meeting should always have written outcomes.
> >
> > On 29 Aug 2019, at 01:21, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, Alex  Valentina and all, if I am allowed, the main criticism for me
> remains":
> > ...
> > 1. very limited publicly accessible proceedings for a publicly funded
> workshop (the report, which as you say is just a  short summary but no
> other more comprehensive resource is provided)
> > ...
> >
>
> In fact, looking at the web page for this meeting, I am even disappointed
> to see extensive reports from the break-out sessions.
> No!
> This meeting was just a community of scholars meeting together to try to
> understand a particular topic in which they were all interested.
> A requirement to document that discussion is a distraction from the
> discussion, and makes it less productive.
> Worse still, a requirement to produce an agreed outcome would seriously
> undermine the nature of the discussion.
> And the need to produce such documents can discourage attendance, as they
> mean attendance may be a bigger commitment than otherwise, and the amount
> of time for proper discussion is reduced. The idea of a week away is
> challenging to busy researchers, so limiting the commitment to exactly that
> is very attractive.
> An abstract from each speaker which can be written at the seminar (by
> hand?), indicating what views they may have, and what they spoke about
> seems perfectly adequate.
>
> Yes, if detailed reports and proposals and outcomes come naturally from
> the activity, that is helpful; but if there is no such thing, then that
> should be perfectly acceptable.
>
> Schloss Dagstuhl was, and still seems to be, a beacon of light in an
> otherwise dreary, paper-grinding, results-driven and -oriented research
> world.
>
> If only we could have a lot more like it, and even reflect more of it in
> our own institutions and funding councils.
>
> Best
>
> --
> Hugh
> 023 8061 5652
>
>