I also agree with Dan here - I think it's largely due to the
non-academic hackers involvement that us academics still have new and
exciting things to write about the Semantic Web. They help cut through
the over-designed complicated solutions that academics make up, and help
pragmatic and workable
Dan Brickley wrote:
However it did not leave any footprint in the academic literature. We
might ask why. Like much of the work around W3C and tech industry
standards, the artifacts it left behind don't often show up in the
citation databases. A white paper here, a Web-based specification
Danny Ayers wrote:
Irrespective, don't you think HTML or even better an RDF (re. your data
sources) would be sort of congruent with this entire effort? Dan and others
could have just slotted URIs into the RDF etc.. and the resource could just
grow and evenly rid itself of its current contextual
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Ying Ding dingy...@indiana.edu wrote:
Hi,
If you are interested to know the Semantic Web: Who is who from the
perspective of Scopus and Web Of Science, recently we conduct a bibliometric
analysis in this field
Dan Brickley wrote:
However it did not leave any footprint in the academic literature. We
might ask why. Like much of the work around W3C and tech industry
standards, the artifacts it left behind don't often show up in the
citation databases. A white paper here, a Web-based specification
there,
Jeremy
I also agree with Dan's post and it adds a lot of insights
however
I dont think the paper necessarily 'misrepresents'
rather, it provides a partial view , IMHO
statistical analyses tend to present skewed views of the world in all fields
nobody in their right mind would take at face
In defence of Ying Ding, mapping out the academic citation material is
worthwhile, but I do tend to agree with Dan and Jeremy in that it's
only part of the picture (and almost certainly not the major part).
While I could have a good old rant about the role played by
enthusiastic amateurs (which
On Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:32 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
A lot of key SemWeb infrastructure came about through non-academic
collaboration; either industrial or what we might call collaborations
conducted online informally, 'Internet-style'. In fact I'd argue that the
needs of the academic
Yes, I agree that in order to get a really good overview of the semantic
web community, we need to look at broader range of publications, such as
DBLP, Arnetminer, Google Scholars. But believe it or not, the formal
judge of the scholarly contribution (especially for tenure promotions),
most of
Ying Ding wrote:
Yes, I agree that in order to get a really good overview of the
semantic web community, we need to look at broader range of
publications, such as DBLP, Arnetminer, Google Scholars. But believe
it or not, the formal judge of the scholarly contribution (especially
for tenure
Irrespective, don't you think HTML or even better an RDF (re. your data
sources) would be sort of congruent with this entire effort? Dan and others
could have just slotted URIs into the RDF etc.. and the resource could just
grow and evenly rid itself of its current contextual short-comings
Hi,
If you are interested to know the Semantic Web: Who is who from the
perspective of Scopus and Web Of Science, recently we conduct a
bibliometric analysis in this field
(http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf),
which might be interesting to you.
best
ying
--
Ying Ding wrote:
Hi,
If you are interested to know the Semantic Web: Who is who from the
perspective of Scopus and Web Of Science, recently we conduct a
bibliometric analysis in this field
(http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf),
which might be interesting to
13 matches
Mail list logo
