> However, we have the testimony of the chief author of the Communique,
> Fabian Neuhaus, that in fact "your ideas had *no* impact on the text
> that is now part of the communique". (01)
Just a clarification: Leo Obrst and Mark Musen are the lead editors of
the communique. The communique drafted based on summaries of the
discussions in the weeks leading up to the Ontology Summit which were
provided by Barry Smith, Frank Olken, Michael Grunininger, Michelle
Raymond, Pat Hayes, Ravi Sharma, and me (the co-editors of the
communique). I spoke up because Barry and I had the lead on the "Quality
and Gatekeeping" discussion which covered the topic of "Open Ontologies"
-- and which is probably the area where Paola believes her rights have
been violated, although she has not been specific. (02)
I agree wholeheartedly with Chris analysis!
Plagiarism is a serious, potentially career ending charge. It is
certainly much to important just to mention it and just let it out there
where it casts shadows on everybody involved. So Paola please be
specific and tell us:
(a) Who do you accuse of plagiarism?
(b) Which part of the communique do you believe quotes your text
verbatim or with minor modifications? (03)
If you can't answer these questions, I think an apology is in order. (04)
Best
Fabian (05)
> Comments on a week-old post, but certain portions are still in play,
> unfortunately, and certain other important charges from PDM haven't
> been addressed.
>
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:42 PM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I indeed maintain that my contribution to the OOR discussion lies in
>> my open ontology work, of which OOR reflects some of its content,
>> and I maintain that my work should be referenced appropriately.
>>
>
> And it *is* referenced appropriately, namely, not at all. Almost
> anything anyone says about any topic "reflects some of the content" of
> something someone else has said on that topic. Aside from the sheer
> practical impossibility of the task, an author has no obligation to
> track down every "reflection" of everything he or she says. Hence, it
> seems to me that you have a legitimate ethical complaint (and I'm
> guessing a legitimate legal complaint, but IANAL) only if (i) you can
> document overt plagiarism -- in which your very words, perhaps with
> only very small changes, are used without attribution, or (2) you can
> demonstrate that someone has in fact drawn directly, intentionally,
> and substantially upon your written work without acknowledgement.
> However, we have the testimony of the chief author of the Communique,
> Fabian Neuhaus, that in fact "your ideas had *no* impact on the text
> that is now part of the communique". Not that Fabian cannot be taken
> at his word, as he is a scrupulously honest scientist, but, having
> compared the two documents, in my opinion it is more than clear his
> claim is true. So the mere fact that the communique "reflects" some
> of the content of your own work is no more significant than the fact
> that it "reflects" some of the content of thousands of other related
> documents on related topics.
>
>
>> I also maintain that by virtue of such contribution, I should have
>> been added/invited to the founders meeting, and that did not happen
>> because invitations to join OOR founders meeting were dispatched
>> selectively, and did not reach the public list members via an email
>> with appropriate subject line as other ontolog events, which is
>> unusual.
>>
>
> There is nothing the least bit unusual about it. What would you
> propose? Making an open call to all 500+ Ontolog participants? The
> "founders", despite the august connotations of the term, were just a
> small group of Ontolog participants that Peter put together to help
> get the OOR initiative off the ground. I'm sure that, for sheer
> considerations of efficiency, he didn't include any number of
> qualified people. Your exclusion, while perhaps an oversight, should
> not be taken as a personal affront.
>
>
>> Of course I cannot claim ownership of Open Ontology, but I claim
>> ownership of open ontology discussions and papers which I have
>> contributed to this list, which have been taken either verbatim
>>
>
> Verbatim? Where, exactly? If that is true, then an acknowledgment
> might be warranted.
>
>
>> or presented with modified wording as contribution to OOR discussions.
>>
>
> So, it appears, your claim is that someone intentionally took your
> actual words from your "published" work and modified them without
> crediting you. A very serious charge! You are charging that someone
> on the Ontolog community is guilty of a grave violation of
> professional ethics. Fabian has already stated that nothing of the
> sort took place in the writing of the Communique, and that he and
> others involved weren't even aware of your work. So what is your
> evidence that this is not true? Charges of such gravity should not be
> put forth frivolously, but only on the basis of the strongest of
> evidence. If you have no evidence, then it is in fact YOU who are
> guilty of a serious violation of professional ethics, if not the law,
> as you are calling the integrity of other professionals into question
> with absolutely no warrant.
>
>
>> I can make a much lengthier argument - and will do so with the
>> appropriate representation if that becomes necessary, but so far I
>> am satisfied by the acknowledgments of the issues raised by other
>> members of the community, and look forward to developments and
>> rectification where is due, as you deem appropriate, and that any
>> copyright infringement of derived efforts such as separate OOR
>> initiatives under a different IPR policy, where they draw from
>> public discussions in open forum, will be constrained by existing
>> IPR policies and copyright ownership and other claims of attribution
>>
>> Please do not take any of the above as a threat,
>>
>
> But that is precisely what it is. You might as well ask us not to
> take any of the above as, say, written in English. What else is the
> assertion that you will pursue your charges "with the appropriate
> representation if that becomes necessary" than an attempt to bully and
> intimidate with the threat of litigation?
>
>
>> but as free advice!
>>
>
> Oh please. It's like Big Louie's "free advice" to the shopkeeper that
> he pay for "protection" lest he find himself with a broken kneecap.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|