[DL] [CfP] VOILA 2017 @ ISWC 2017 - 3rd Workshop on Visualization and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data

Lohmann, Steffen Steffen.Lohmann at iais.fraunhofer.de
Tue May 9 11:40:19 CEST 2017


Hi Sarven,

we had good experiences with these submission guidelines in the past editions of VOILA, and there has been no single request for changing them so far. However, I agree HTML-based formats have certainly benefits over PDF (if produced properly), and we generally support them in our group at Uni Bonn as you know. We therefore already discussed this issue among us VOILA organizers and will likely go for a similar model as this year's ISWC, i.e., allow for submissions either in PDF or HTML, whatever authors prefer - see https://iswc2017.semanticweb.org/calls/html-submission-guide/

Thanks for giving some supportive comments on that!

Best,
Steffen


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Sarven Capadisli [mailto:info at csarven.ca]
> Gesendet: Montag, 8. Mai 2017 11:46
> An: Valentina Ivanova <valentina.ivanova at liu.se>; semantic-web at w3.org;
> public-semweb-ui at w3.org; sais-members at lists.lysator.liu.se; dl at dl.kr.org
> Betreff: Re: [CfP] VOILA 2017 @ ISWC 2017 - 3rd Workshop on Visualization
> and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data
> 
> On 2017-05-05 22:04, Valentina Ivanova wrote:
> > Paper submission and reviewing for this workshop will be electronic
> > via EasyChair. The papers should be written in English, following the
> > Springer LNCS format, and be submitted in PDF on or before July 21,
> > 2017.
> 
> Hi Valentina,
> 
> I find the submission guidelines of this workshop to be super awkward.
> Has the organising committee considered to pay-it-forward by making it
> possible for its *clientele* to make their contributions via formats that are
> native to the Web? In contrast to what the workshop is currently promoting and
> setting constraints with desktop/print centric formats like PDF. Certainly
> Springer LNCS's view is inappropriate to box all content into one size fits all. Do
> we use a single visualisation method for all data?
> 
> Is the workshop's clientele not up to par to represent, publish and disseminate
> their knowledge via native Web standards? Would you consider the possibility
> that perhaps this workshop should take the responsibility to enable and
> encourage such behaviour? Is there anything the workshop requires to make
> this a reality? Are you open to it?
> 
> Imagine what type of visualisations would be possible based on its own
> academic output. Here are some basic examples for whatever it is worth:
> 
> An article with accompanying citations, annotations, arguments etc:
> https://twitter.com/csarven/status/844507280330641408
> 
> Complete output of statements and interlinks among different types of articles
> (spec, test report, academic article, implementation). See thread:
> https://twitter.com/csarven/status/834730892027424768
> 
> hasPart/citations among three articles from different domains:
> https://twitter.com/csarven/status/831181624310132736
> 
> reply_of/has_reply at csarven.ca:
> https://twitter.com/csarven/status/828767664831098880
> ...
> 
> 
> Contrast that with how far dead-weight PDFs gets us.
> 
> Care to help make this happen?
> 
> https://twitter.com/csarven/status/861507593260457984
> 
> :)
> 
> Would you consider thinking in terms of *articles* instead of *papers*?
> 
> http://csarven.ca/web-science-from-404-to-200#s-paper-article
> 
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i




More information about the dl mailing list