Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

Hi Phil, Good question. I’m afraid none of the username/passwords I have for w3.org seem to work. Can you give me a hint at which pair I should be using, or tell me how to retrieve/reset, please? While I’m here… :-) a) I think the idea of allowing CFPs, as long as they clearly have [CFP] or

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

+1 to stuff like "[CfP]" (and also "[RFP]," etc) added to Subject lines. +100 to people refraining from submitting bogusly long [CfP]'s. These simply AREN'T necessary! [CfP] emails should be limited to very brief summaries of the CfP --- possibly "structured," but a very few elements, and a LINK.

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

On 31/03/2016 09:15, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on these lists might have a different opinion. However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short, well-written or structured the email is. Whatever we

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on these lists might have a different opinion. However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short, well-written or structured the email is. Whatever we decide one thing that would definitely help it to make

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion. In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a special place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would publish

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

On Wednesday 30. March 2016 10.19.51 Krzysztof Janowicz wrote: > > +1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben > > sugested) I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies > > have a suitable schema for CfPs. > > Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

> A simple plain text email works just fine. Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right now. Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this. Some common practices, like

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote: > Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, >> semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the >> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as >>

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested) I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a suitable schema for CfPs. Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text email works just fine. On 03/30/2016 09:37 AM, Ali Khalili wrote: +1 for

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested) I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a suitable schema for CfPs. I remember, once we did an analysis of the SemWeb mailing list looking specially for CfPs. The results showed a growing number of

RE: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

One thought is a dedicated W3C announcement list, e.g., semweb-ld-annou...@w3.org, or something similar. Thanks, Leo >-Original Message- >From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verbo...@ugent.be] >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:19 AM >To: Axel Polleres >Cc: Phil

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural as using dbworld in the databases community. My feeling is that of we ban CfPs

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

Dear all, Thanks Phil for bringing up this debate. I agree with Axel about the list being a natural place. However, I think we need something else: a clear guideline for efficient CfPs. Too often, CfPs look like the braindump of 10 different people all mixed together. The more information it

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

Hi Axel, I support your position. Best Marko On 30. 03. 16 14:58, Axel Polleres wrote: Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

On 2016-03-30 13:21, Phil Archer wrote: Dear all, A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should not allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the policy, with any message