+1 to Sarven's proposal. We have to start 'at home' with improving publication process & output. Quite frankly, if the experts in linked data don't lead by example and show the benefits, how / why will conference organizers & publishers change how they do things. That said, we have to show how more robust data capture benefits their business model *and* helps researchers [because they can collaborate more effectively, grant funding goes further & is more effective, etc].
Over time, it will have broader implications in the larger research community and beyond. That is my 2 cents. Cheers, Bernadette Hyland CEO, 3 Round Stones, Inc. http://3roundstones.com http://about.me/bernadettehyland On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Sarven Capadisli <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-10-01 18:12, Fabien Gandon wrote: >> Dear Saven, > > Thank your for your response Fabien. > >> The scientific articles are presenting scientific achievements in a format >> that is suitable for human consumption. >> Documents in a portable format remain the best way to do that for a >> conference today. > > I acknowledge the current state of matters for sharing scientific knowledge. > However, the concern was whether ESWC was willing to promote Web native > technologies for sharing knowledge, as opposed to solely insisting on Adobe's > PDF, a desktop native technology. > > If my memory serves me correctly, the Web "took off" not because of PDF, but > due to plain old simple HTML. You know just as well that HTML was intended > for scientific knowledge sharing at large scale, for human as well as machine > consumption. > >> However: >> - all the metadata of the conference are published as linked data e.g. >> http://data.semanticweb.org/conference/eswc/2014/html > > This is great. But, don't you think that we can and ought to do better than > just metadata? > >> - authors are encouraged to publish, the datasets and algorithms they use in >> their research on the Web following its standards. > > I think we all know too well that this is something left as optional that > very few follow-up. There is no reproducibility "police" in SW/LD venues. > Simply put, we can't honestly reproduce the research because all of the > important atomic components that are discussed in the papers e.g., from > hypothesis, variables, to conclusions, are not precisely identified or easily > discoverable. Most of the time, one has to hunt down the authors for that > information. IMHO, this severely limits scientific progress on Web Science. > > Will you compromise on the submission such that the submissions can be in PDF > and/or in HTML(+RDFa)? > > Thanks again for considering. > > -Sarven > http://csarven.ca/#i >
