On Wednesday 30. March 2016 10.19.51 Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> > +1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben
> > sugested) I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies
> > have a suitable schema for CfPs.
>
> Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text
> A simple plain text email works just fine.
Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right now.
Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.
Some common practices, like
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz
wrote:
> Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
>> semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the
>> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as
>>
+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested)
I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a
suitable schema for CfPs.
Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text email works just fine.
On 03/30/2016 09:37 AM, Ali Khalili wrote:
+1 for
+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested)
I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a suitable
schema for CfPs.
I remember, once we did an analysis of the SemWeb mailing list looking
specially for CfPs. The results showed a growing number of
One thought is a dedicated W3C announcement list, e.g.,
semweb-ld-annou...@w3.org, or something similar.
Thanks,
Leo
>-Original Message-
>From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verbo...@ugent.be]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:19 AM
>To: Axel Polleres
>Cc: Phil
Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org
is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this
area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural as using dbworld in
the databases community.
My feeling is that of we ban CfPs
Dear all,
Thanks Phil for bringing up this debate.
I agree with Axel about the list being a natural place.
However, I think we need something else:
a clear guideline for efficient CfPs.
Too often, CfPs look like the braindump
of 10 different people all mixed together.
The more information it
Hi Axel,
I support your position.
Best
Marko
On 30. 03. 16 14:58, Axel Polleres wrote:
Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org
is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this
area. So, spreading calls for papers there is
On 2016-03-30 13:21, Phil Archer wrote:
Dear all,
A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to
be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should
not allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the
policy, with any message
Dear all,
A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to
be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should
not allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the
policy, with any message detected as being a CfP marked as spam
11 matches
Mail list logo