W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2019

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

From: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 18:58:02 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMXe=SqsfXgR4ETpvHDMjQxpo1tY1shYusCMsypeSqnVjnZ00w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hugh started this thread , and make it clear that it is offtopic :-)

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:38 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 01:30, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Danbri,
>> yesterday I saw your email and replied, but to the wrong thread
>> (apologies!). I repaste it here.
>> In addition to what I say below, it occurs to me that it would be
>> interesting. from a scientific technical point of view and, maybe even in
>> the public interest, to learn about the different directions being proposed
>> that caused disagreement
>> I cannot remember now if this was covered in the field trip reports
> While it might be interesting, there are better ways of asking about the
> content of people’s non-public meetings than threads like this.
> Dan
>> Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>> Tue, Sep 24, 2:08 PM (18 hours ago)
>> to *semantic-web*, Dan
>> Danbri
>> You are missing the point of this thread (sorry just seen this emai)
>> There is no complaint about Dagstuhl being made
>> Please read carefully from the beginning, if you are interested-
>> The point is that people who read about the workshop through the report
>> are misinformed, about KG and about a bunch of other things
>> The complaint is about poor research direction and poor information about
>> the
>> state of the art in the research direction in KR, etc etc. This is
>> painful but true.
>> What is the point of having workshop reports published, if they dont tell
>> the truth
>> or even in the case when they just report the abstracts, these are
>> painfully
>> superficial and inadequate to represent the state of the art and research
>> challenges, etc etc etc
>> Cheers
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 6:08 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>> 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
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 10:59:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:38 UTC