Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 solutions florish. (Danny mentions REST, which is not the perfect example, since even the most hackish of hackers will cite Roy Fielding's PhD thesis as the starter) However, ranting about hackers vs. academics was not my intention: For a nice example on how understanding history through citation gets it wrong, see: The Most Influential Paper Gerard Salton Never Wrote by David Dubin Library Trends, 2004. - Gunnar people have lots of citations to their credit when they have scores of students who are obliged to cite their professors, or lots of friends who reciprocate, it does not mean that the paper cited are necessarily good ones thats a fact about citation life *** so, if we were to tell the story of the SW only from that paper, i agree it would be misleading as long as nobody believes that the truth about something can be contained in any single analysis I am interested in reality as a view, because thats all we get, anyway, no matter what (it can be a better view) i am going through a similar dilemma in my research, ca I really provide the state of the art in any given subject simply by looking at academic literature of it? that would be foolish (thats what they like to believe in universities) no - to begin to have a state of the art, I have to talk to people, and take a good look around various sources and repositories there are methodological validity considerations of course in such a paper the research question for me is: how valid are all partial views of the world? it says 'accepted for pubilcation', does it mean there is still time to make some corrections? some statement about the limitations of the approach, plus additional considerations and context provided by this community and Dans post, could help make the paper an interesting contribution in itself both as a statistical analysis /account and in contrast to reality as observed outside from literature a proof that once again some facts can all be true, but unless the picture is 'complete' can be misleading my inclination would be to try to add a couple of layers of context at the intro and conclusions I dont like to see efforts go to waste, however partial best PDM On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com mailto:jer...@topquadrant.com wrote: 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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf http://info.slis.indiana.edu/%7Edingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I think with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C effort, essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer path for the academic work Maybe: OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah McGuinness 3, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4 Given the current dominance and importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be formulated using existing web standards for information representation. Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C recs. These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They also have better review process than academic stuff. I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened. Jeremy -- Paola Di Maio ** “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” Albert Einstein **
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. Btw, last summer at the ESWC SPOT2009 workshop Matthew Rowe and Jonathan Butters presented a paper that took into account online documents (blogs, standards, ), as well as the academic pdf based publishing to glean a global social network. Assessing Trust: Contextual Accountability is available here: http://spot.semanticweb.org/2009/ As far as trying to relate both spaces, this is a good piece of work. It is clear that one needs to look at the global information systems to get a coherent view. I do agree with Danbri that standard based documents go through a lot more review than academic papers. Having these online and linkable also means they can be a lot more influential. Even more so if the ideas are implemented in real useable software. Just to give a minor example: The Atom XML IETF standard I participated in developing was the culmination of years of development on RSS work. The group spent 2 years working out the details of the wording of that document. This then was incorporated into software used by millions of people. And for some reason a lot of Academic papers fail to cite web based standards, blogs or other places where ideas may have emerged. Henry
Re: Academic publishing and the Web [was Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)]
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 short-comings etc.. Absolutely. (The kind of data-heavy material Ying Ding has produced would be an ideal candidate for expression in a data-oriented form). Sorry (for grumpy sounding comment), but PDFs really get under my skin as sole mechanism for transmitting data when conversation is about the Semantic Web Project etc.. Sadly, this realm is rife with PDF as sole information delivery mechanism, even when the conversation is actually about the Web (a medium not constructed around Linked PDF documents). Again, absolutely (and it annoys the tits off me too) - not only pdf but also ps, and in the odd strange case MS doc format. Alas it seems academia is largely slow on the uptake when it comes to publication. I'm sure this is just as frustrating for the individual that wishes to be published as the rest-of-the-world that wants their information. But then again, we still have printed matter... Yeah, and the essence of open data access (pre and post Web) has been to yank those entities referenced in the printed matter into alternative projection surfaces, guided by context :-) Kingsley Cheers, Danny. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 (http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf), which might be interesting to you. It's interesting to see what a traditional - ie. essentially pre-Web - citation analysis comes up with; however I wouldn't leap so quickly to claim this this results in 'identifying the most productive players'. 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 publication process have often been a retarding factor on this collaborative work. The traditionally-published academic literature is of course a key part of the story, but if you look at it alone you will end up with both a misleading sense of how things got this way, and -worse- misleading intuitions about how to get more involved and help further the project. This is why I bother to make a little fuss here. The phrase 'Semantic Web' from ~2000 was essentially a rebranding of the then-unfashionable RDF technology. Prior to calling it RDF, the project was called PICS-NG. These days many call it 'Linked Data' instead. From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/sw99/ - http://www.w3.org/1999/11/SW/Overview.html (Member-only link) 'We propose to continue the W3C Metadata Activity as a Semantic Web Development Initiative'. But by this point, the base technology was already out there, both as a W3C Recommendation and as something in use: Netscape - the Google of it's time - was using RDF already. For example back in October 1988 http://web.archive.org/web/19991002043750/www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1998-11/0004.html R.V.Guha, then at Netscape wrote I still see this as a big and important use of RDF. This server answers over 2 million requests in RDF every day. ... I do plan to fix the RDF, but thats with the next version of the browser (I have about 6M browsers out there which are depending on this older format). Any narrative that puts the start of Semantic Web history in 2000/2001 will confuse people as to where it came from: we had major browser buy-in 2-3 years previously, after all. And any narrative that omits the role of MCF - simply because it didn't come through the academic publication process - risks misleading 'emerging stars' about how to make an impact on the world rather than just on the citation databases. Netscape bought into RDF because it grew from MCF, acquired from Apple with Guha. A reformulation of MCF to use an XML notation was one of the key inputs into the RDF design; see http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML/ and the earlier MCF White Paper http://www.guha.com/mcf/wp.html Now MCF had significant mind-share and presence in the tech world back in 1996 - http://web.archive.org/web/2815212707/http://www.xspace.net/hotsauce/ - and even grassroots adoption on sites that wanted to have a '3d fly thru' using Apple's then-cool visualization plugin. MCF was a direct ancestor to RSS (also originally an RDF-based Netscape product); it was triples-based, written in XML, and quite recognisable as RDF's precursor to anyone who reads the spec. The grassroots, information linking style of MCF was one of the inspirations behind FOAF too. 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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. In my experience, many of the discussions that shaped the early RDF and Semantic Web efforts were conducted online, using email, often also IRC chat, and as the years went by, increasingly in blogs and now microblogs. And many of the people who got a lot done were not employed in an academic setting where there was an institutionalised pressure to public in certain kinds of places. This is not to belittle the critically important contributions that came from those employed in academia, just to note that the wave of interest and research funding that followed 200/1 served largely to polish and promote ideas (and tools, specs) that had already reached prominence via Internet/Web/industry means. Without that academic buy-in and associated research funding, the Semantic Project would surely be dead by now. However, there is a continuing danger of confusing the real project --- a global collaboration to improve the Web's information-linking facilities ---
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I think with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C effort, essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer path for the academic work Maybe: OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah McGuinness 3, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4 Given the current dominance and importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be formulated using existing web standards for information representation. Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C recs. These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They also have better review process than academic stuff. I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened. Jeremy
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 value the results of statistical analyses without checking if they correspond to reality (apart obviously from some academics) people have lots of citations to their credit when they have scores of students who are obliged to cite their professors, or lots of friends who reciprocate, it does not mean that the paper cited are necessarily good ones thats a fact about citation life *** so, if we were to tell the story of the SW only from that paper, i agree it would be misleading as long as nobody believes that the truth about something can be contained in any single analysis I am interested in reality as a view, because thats all we get, anyway, no matter what (it can be a better view) i am going through a similar dilemma in my research, ca I really provide the state of the art in any given subject simply by looking at academic literature of it? that would be foolish (thats what they like to believe in universities) no - to begin to have a state of the art, I have to talk to people, and take a good look around various sources and repositories there are methodological validity considerations of course in such a paper the research question for me is: how valid are all partial views of the world? it says 'accepted for pubilcation', does it mean there is still time to make some corrections? some statement about the limitations of the approach, plus additional considerations and context provided by this community and Dans post, could help make the paper an interesting contribution in itself both as a statistical analysis /account and in contrast to reality as observed outside from literature a proof that once again some facts can all be true, but unless the picture is 'complete' can be misleading my inclination would be to try to add a couple of layers of context at the intro and conclusions I dont like to see efforts go to waste, however partial best PDM On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.comwrote: 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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdfhttp://info.slis.indiana.edu/%7Edingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I think with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C effort, essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer path for the academic work Maybe: OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah McGuinness 3, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4 Given the current dominance and importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be formulated using existing web standards for information representation. Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C recs. These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They also have better review process than academic stuff. I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened. Jeremy -- Paola Di Maio ** “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” Albert Einstein **
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 hopefully is all somewhere archived in mailing lists such as rdf-dev xml-dev), something that could more easily be overlooked is the influence of (developers of) related tech, in particular things like the rise of REST as *the* practical paradigm for Web services and the explosion of online social networks, all very strongly informing the Semantic Web effort. I would suggest that these outside influences had a lot to do with the reinvention of the Semantic Web as Linked Data (though timbl is the authority on that bit of history), rather than either as just a metadata idea or another kind of expert system. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 publication process have often been a retarding factor on this collaborative work. Indeed. The academy, as an establishment for knowledge advancement, is losing its research monopoly. Our critical times pushing for a more holistic understanding of the knowledge cycle mechanisms and innovation processes. There is a strong tendency to forming the user-centric environments for research, development and innovation, mostly induced by Multidisciplinarity and ICT paradigms. As an example may serve Experience and Application Research or Living Lab community, where users together with researchers, firms and public institutions look for new solutions, new products, new services or new business models. http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/ There may be a city driven Living Lab or the Future Internet Living Lab or the Knowledge Web Living Lab, etc. Azamat - Original Message - dingy...@indiana.edu From: Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org To: Ying Ding dingy...@indiana.edu Cc: Semantic Web semantic-...@w3.org; public-lod@w3.org Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:32 AM Subject: Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS) 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 (http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf), which might be interesting to you. It's interesting to see what a traditional - ie. essentially pre-Web - citation analysis comes up with; however I wouldn't leap so quickly to claim this this results in 'identifying the most productive players'. 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 publication process have often been a retarding factor on this collaborative work. The traditionally-published academic literature is of course a key part of the story, but if you look at it alone you will end up with both a misleading sense of how things got this way, and -worse- misleading intuitions about how to get more involved and help further the project. This is why I bother to make a little fuss here. The phrase 'Semantic Web' from ~2000 was essentially a rebranding of the then-unfashionable RDF technology. Prior to calling it RDF, the project was called PICS-NG. These days many call it 'Linked Data' instead. From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/sw99/ - http://www.w3.org/1999/11/SW/Overview.html (Member-only link) 'We propose to continue the W3C Metadata Activity as a Semantic Web Development Initiative'. But by this point, the base technology was already out there, both as a W3C Recommendation and as something in use: Netscape - the Google of it's time - was using RDF already. For example back in October 1988 http://web.archive.org/web/19991002043750/www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1998-11/0004.html R.V.Guha, then at Netscape wrote I still see this as a big and important use of RDF. This server answers over 2 million requests in RDF every day. ... I do plan to fix the RDF, but thats with the next version of the browser (I have about 6M browsers out there which are depending on this older format). Any narrative that puts the start of Semantic Web history in 2000/2001 will confuse people as to where it came from: we had major browser buy-in 2-3 years previously, after all. And any narrative that omits the role of MCF - simply because it didn't come through the academic publication process - risks misleading 'emerging stars' about how to make an impact on the world rather than just on the citation databases. Netscape bought into RDF because it grew from MCF, acquired from Apple with Guha. A reformulation of MCF to use an XML notation was one of the key inputs into the RDF design; see http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML/ and the earlier MCF White Paper http://www.guha.com/mcf/wp.html Now MCF had significant mind-share and presence in the tech world back in 1996 - http://web.archive.org/web/2815212707/http://www.xspace.net/hotsauce/ - and even grassroots adoption on sites that wanted to have a '3d fly thru' using Apple's then-cool visualization plugin. MCF was a direct ancestor to RSS (also originally an RDF-based Netscape product); it was triples-based, written in XML, and quite recognisable as RDF's precursor to anyone who reads the spec. The grassroots, information linking style of MCF was one of the inspirations behind FOAF too. However it
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 the universities took Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS) really serious. You cannot go for tenure just by writing many good emails, or W3C technical reports. Yes, citation can be bias and this debate has been there for decades, but WOS is still dominating the world of scholarly communication. Journal editors are still proud of their high Impact Factors (no matter what). Students might be obliged to cite their supervisor's papers, but that will not bring you to the top of the top based on hundreds of thousands of citations. I will love to collaborate with people who wants to do a thorough evaluation of the semantic web field as i think it is a high time to do this and we need this in order to know the current status of our community. Like Information Retrieval (SIGIR), Database (VLDB, SIGMOD) or Data mining (SIGKDD) area, they are all well established with their own conferences, top journals, and field medals. I think it is time for us to establish such for our Semantic Web Community. best ying Jeremy Carroll wrote: 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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I think with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C effort, essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer path for the academic work Maybe: OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah McGuinness 3, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4 Given the current dominance and importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be formulated using existing web standards for information representation. Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C recs. These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They also have better review process than academic stuff. I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened. Jeremy -- Ying Ding, Assistant Professor of Information Science Co-Director of the Semantic Web Lab: http://swl.slis.indiana.edu/ School of Library Information Science, Indiana University 1320 East 10th Street, Herman B Wells Library, LI025 Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Tel: (812) 855 5388, Fax: (812) 855 6166 Homepage: http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 promotions), most of the universities took Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS) really serious. You cannot go for tenure just by writing many good emails, or W3C technical reports. Yes, citation can be bias and this debate has been there for decades, but WOS is still dominating the world of scholarly communication. Journal editors are still proud of their high Impact Factors (no matter what). Students might be obliged to cite their supervisor's papers, but that will not bring you to the top of the top based on hundreds of thousands of citations. I will love to collaborate with people who wants to do a thorough evaluation of the semantic web field as i think it is a high time to do this and we need this in order to know the current status of our community. Like Information Retrieval (SIGIR), Database (VLDB, SIGMOD) or Data mining (SIGKDD) area, they are all well established with their own conferences, top journals, and field medals. I think it is time for us to establish such for our Semantic Web Community. best ying Ying, 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 etc.. Sorry (for grumpy sounding comment), but PDFs really get under my skin as sole mechanism for transmitting data when conversation is about the Semantic Web Project etc.. Sadly, this realm is rife with PDF as sole information delivery mechanism, even when the conversation is actually about the Web (a medium not constructed around Linked PDF documents). Kingsley Jeremy Carroll wrote: 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, ... it's influence cannot easily be measured through academic citation patterns, despite the fact that without it, the vast majority of papers mentioned in http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.pdf would never have existed. IIRC there was an explicit proposal by an earlier European paper (I think with Fensel as an author) to align some academic work with the W3C effort, essentially to provide branding, name recognition and a transfer path for the academic work Maybe: OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web Dieter Fensel 1, Ian Horrocks 2, Frank van Harmelen 1, Deborah McGuinness 3, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider 4 Given the current dominance and importance of the WWW, a syntax of an ontology exchange language must be formulated using existing web standards for information representation. Ying Ding's paper suffers from excluding technical papers such as W3C recs. These are widely cited, typically moreso than academic work. They also have better review process than academic stuff. I tend to agree with Dan that her work misrepresents what really happened. Jeremy -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Academic publishing and the Web [was Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)]
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 etc.. Absolutely. (The kind of data-heavy material Ying Ding has produced would be an ideal candidate for expression in a data-oriented form). Sorry (for grumpy sounding comment), but PDFs really get under my skin as sole mechanism for transmitting data when conversation is about the Semantic Web Project etc.. Sadly, this realm is rife with PDF as sole information delivery mechanism, even when the conversation is actually about the Web (a medium not constructed around Linked PDF documents). Again, absolutely (and it annoys the tits off me too) - not only pdf but also ps, and in the odd strange case MS doc format. Alas it seems academia is largely slow on the uptake when it comes to publication. I'm sure this is just as frustrating for the individual that wishes to be published as the rest-of-the-world that wants their information. But then again, we still have printed matter... Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)
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 you. best ying You don't have this data in an RDF resource somewhere? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
