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: Joshua Shinavier <joshsh@uber.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:40:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPc0OuuJhsjNc4jc4M3EvprZCpOc3LKq3V2zKARD+Lcs9hjGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
It would be great if this/these long thread/s had produced some coherent
message which could be used to make the next seminar even better, but I
don't see that emerging. Do I speak for everyone when I suggest that
capturing the concerns, the responses, and working toward some sort of
consensus in a Google Doc or a wiki would make more sense than broadcasting
further messages to this list? I would read and possibly contribute to such
a doc, but I don't want to read further emails. Thanks.


On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:02 AM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>

> 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
>> PDM
>>> 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 23:41:21 UTC

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