On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 17:36, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 21/10/17 16:14, [email protected] wrote: > > 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 > > No problem with that. > > I did some editting on it to emphasis the Code of practice, and away > from the incident: > > --------------------------- > > > On the Responsible Disclosure of Benchmarking Results > > > The Apache Jena PMC would like to suggest to the benchmarking community > that they adopt a code of practice that will improve benchmarking > semantic web systems by focusing on the contribution to the literature > and away from transient details. > > The PMC was recently made aware of a paper scheduled to be presented at > the Workshop on Benchmarking Linked Data (BLINK) at ISWC 2017. The paper > in question provides a new benchmark for property paths. > > We are disappointed that the authors identified a deficiency in our > project's implementation about which they made no attempt to contact us. > Indeed, our public JIRA has independently reported tickets that are > relevant. A fix has been available for some time. > > We are by no means the only project affected, other correctness and > performance issues across several projects were identified in this > paper. > > We wish to raise a general issue we and others in our community perceive > across this field of research. > > Investigation and analysis of algorithms and designs should not be based > on engineering details. > > As an open source project maintained by volunteers we rely upon the > wider community, both in industry and academia, to bring issues to our > attention in a timely fashion. > > If this was a security flaw the expected standard practice would be to > responsibly disclose the issue to the affected projects and work with > those projects to address the issue. > > Many of us have a background in scientific research and appreciate that > research often happens on tight timelines but simply sending a short to > a project about an identified issue is not unreasonable.
jjust a typo here > short "notice" to > > We would like to suggest to the benchmarking community that they adopt a > code of good practice that encourages feedback leading to high-quality > results for the long term benefit of other researchers. > > If you could raise the topic of responsible disclosure of issues > identified during the course of your workshop that would be much > appreciated. > > Regards, > > The Apache Jena PMC > -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
