I think Rob's suggested message is pretty reasonable. I think what we can do in this situation is to help open a larger
conversation about what is fair and what is desirable for this kind of research.
ajs6f
Andy Seaborne wrote on 10/20/17 5:30 PM:
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
