On 20/10/17 11:13, Rob Vesse wrote:
On 20/10/2017 15:56, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: Given this, references to the 2015 are spurious and misleading. If you read the original bachelors thesis that Marco referenced [1] the equivalent text and the footnote is as follows: 3 https://jena.apache.org/ retrieved at 13.12.2015 Which would indeed be Jena 3.0.1, so the original research was started in December 2015 and completed sometime between then and July 2016 when that thesis was submitted.
I'm not disputing that at all - but the average reader will read the paper and that's what it claims. Clearly its wrong because we look harder; others may take it at face value.
I would guess that when it was reformatted into a workshop paper they simply checked that all the URLs still worked and updated the footnotes accordingly Maybe we are just splitting hairs and expecting too much, it just frustrates me when someone discovers a problem and makes no effort to resolve it
+1
Rob [1] https://west.uni-koblenz.de/sites/default/files/studying/theses-files/bachelorarbeit-adrian-skubella-benchmarks-for-sparql-property-paths.pdf
