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

Thank you, Hugh.

FWIW I was amongst those privileged to attend the Dagstuhl meeting. It is
entirely appropriate that the published document does not attempt to cover
all views expressed during the event. For example, mild mannered though I
am, at one point I walked out of a session due to extreme disagreement with
the direction being proposed. It is important that we have (multiple)
venues in which we can talk frankly about topics without everything being
broadcast to a planet-wide audience, or even reframed via abstracts and
summaries.

I have already heard of one longtime listmember unsubscribing from this
mailing list due to this pointless and provocative thread. Can people keep
their followups private please?

Dan

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019, 12:17 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
>
>
>