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

 ... in fact, if you’re looking for scientific answers, go to papers, not reports of huis clos seminars.
If you look for something that is still in a pre-paradigmatic phase, contribute to the discussion by asking specific questions.
Your meta-level judgments look like science “populism” ;).
AG

On 30 Aug 2019, at 10:59, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@unibo.it<mailto:aldo.gangemi@unibo.it>> wrote:

Hello Paola, you are probably fighting a useless war.

On 30 Aug 2019, at 08:45, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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