Pat H and Pat C (01)
I) did not receive the message below via the list btw, but via a
snippet from others comments
wondering why) (02)
I am glad that there is an interesting twist to this conversation,
linking back to the old discussion we had about how to 'open
scientific publishing' and make it more dynamic, faster and less
stiff, without devoiding it of rigour and integrity (sounds like
mission impossible, but change and transformation happen with or
without us) we can anticipate, or follow events (03)
Pat H, I am not confusing academic good conduct - scientific domain is
FULL of frauds (varying degrees) and scientists claiming for
attribution for work developed by their juniors, fellows and peers
This is standard practice. Includes notable nobel prizes.
There is a full history, and such misappropriation of credit is
unfortunately just another human tragedy. There is very little tha we
can do about that (04)
When publishing work however, especially in a public forum, the
author can kick ass (or at least try to), on IPR ground, in a public
court of law - (no such thing as an academic tribunal is there? the
equivalent of the court marshal for the sciences? ) (05)
(also in reply to Pat C offline note about IPR):
copyright law is part of Intellectual Property Law, and right of
attribution, as contemplated in public lists forums can be protected
by the law - whether nobody has bothered enforcing it yet, is another
matter - I would not mind setting a precendent (06)
I really find online K exchanges as important complements of
scientific knowledge exchange in rapidly evolving highly interactive ,
interdisciplinary domains (07)
I have enough respect for the new media an for the communities who
pioneer the adoption of new media, to place my faith on them, and help
disperse the seeds of change, (08)
web based environments have their limitations, surely, but ultimately
its down to how people use the things - and thanks to web based
environments the bad habit of 'passing off' can become much more
visible and addressable publicly (09)
so something is published, when i has been generated and it is
publicly accesible, and has unique identifiers, and metadata, and a
url, and it is valid, unique piece of knowledge (in as much as any k
can be valid and unique) and can be protected, and opened up as
required by the appropriate licensing agreement (010)
pdm (011)
>
> At 11:49 AM -0400 5/6/08, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >I think in this day of web 2.0 science and knowledge being exchanged
> >dynamically, we may have find ways to reference scientific and
> >academic contributions which come into being from mailing lists and
> >wikis.
>
> Indeed, and this is an area which is in flux and rather indeterminate
> right now.
>
> >This is what IPR policies are for, right?
>
> Wrong. You are confusing IPR with academic good-conduct rules of
> acknowledgement and priority of publication. the former are primarily
> legally debated and arise over money; the latter are academically
> debated and arise over issues of professional reputation and such
> matters as tenure.
>
> >....should we just agree that
> >what is published should be acknowledged, irrespective of where it is
> >published?
>
> That depends on what counts as 'publishing'. For academic purposes,
> this is usually understood to mean publication in some kind of
> peer-reviewed forum, which Wikis and blogs and so on are clearly not.
> As you say, the Web 2.0 phenomenon may cause this to (slowly) change,
> but academics are extremely conservative when it comes to how they
> conduct their own internal affairs, and until such bodies as tenure
> review committees start changing their attitudes, I do not see the
> central notion of 'academic publication' changing much. (012)
it has changed already, with the proliferation of jounals, diversity
of disciplines and varying criteria and thresholds of acceptance
>
> Academics are expected to be aware of publications in peer-reviewed
> journals in their own field, so ignorance of prior publication there
> is no excuse (and in any case, should be caught by later peer
> reviewing); but nobody can be expected to read every wiki and blog
> and newspaper and general-interest journal that comes out.
>
sorry, - I consider and value this forum as the most specialised,
comprehensive and interactive
source of knowledge generation in this field, albeit a bit casual and
disorganized
Pat, can you point me a journal where the
> I have personally given up on even trying to maintain a publication
> trail for my own ideas, and in more and more cases have even
> abandoned any attempt to have them all attributed. My name does not
> appear anywhere on the ISO Common Logic standard, which I wrote
> almost entirely (apart from appendices B and C), and I'm cool with
> that, as I had the option of being the Editor and turned it down. And
> I know in several cases I have re-invented an idea which has then
> been published and only afterwards has it been noted that it (or
> something very like it) had in fact been previously known. In some
> cases, it is virtually impossible to reconstruct an accurate
> attribution history, as some ideas were kind of half-known to an
> entire community for a while, and only became sharp and crystallized
> later, over an extended period of debate and discussion. With the
> wisdom of hindsight it can then be argued that some particular
> publication was the 'first' to have the idea, but in fact the idea
> had not really been gotten clear enough at that time to be fully
> attributable to any one source. Logic programming is a good example.
> The invention of the basic idea here has been attributed to R.
> Kowalski, A. Colmerauer, C. Green (who received an award for it), C.
> Hewitt and myself, and possibly to others. In fact, what is now
> called Logic Programming evolved over a period of several years, and
> all these people, and others, were involved in the discussions and
> idea development at the time, all with different agendas and
> emphases. Prolog was invented by Colmerauer; both Kowalski and myself
> came up with the idea embodied in the slogan "algorithm= logic +
> control"; Hewitt invented Planner, which was structurally similar to
> Prolog in some ways but did not present itself explicitly as a logic;
> and so on. One could list a dozen influential projects from that
> period which were similar in some way and might be called 'the first'
> logic programming system; and all these descriptions would have a
> taint of truth, but all be ultimately wrong.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
> http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> (013)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (015)
|