Hi Juan, Seems like we mostly agree—short remarks below.
> One thing is science. Another is engineering. Perhaps we need Semantic Web Engineering conferences then as well! > If we don't know the right evaluation metrics (I agree with you that we > don't), then that is the current challenge we, as a semantic web scientific > community, have to tackle. Indeed, but I've found the scientific community to be not so open to new evaluation metrics either. There is insufficient agreement on (and too limited knowledge of) the right scientific methodology to tackle such novel problems. > It shouldn't discourage you... on the contrary, it should encourage you to > identify novel ways to evaluate what you are doing and convince the community > why it is important. The trouble is you don't have to convince the entire community (with whom you can have an open dialog), but a tiny set of anonymous reviewers (for whom the known paths are often easier to judge). My remark was precisely that convincing is hard once you move away from the known paths. So the scientific community, which is a large part of the total Semantic Web community, might in that sense be hampering real novelty—from science and engineering alike, whichever might be the difference. Best, Ruben
