Paola,
This is becoming ridiculous:
Yes, you did not use the term "plagiarism", but you wrote on May 5th: " ... I claim
ownership of open ontology discussions and papers which I have
contributed to this list, which have been taken either verbatim or
presented with modified wording as contribution to OOR discussions."
Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. (This definition is from Wikipedia).
Therefore you accused somebody of plagiarism. Whom? Please provide some evidence.
By the way that's not the first time you made this claim. On May 2nd you wrote:
"Even if the names of the topics are shuffled around a bit, and the
content of the contribution is desperately being y morphed and
exploded into bigger picture using awkward linguisting convolutions,
it is obvious that the OOR discussions, and derived artifaces,
currently being discussed in a privale list, under a separate IPR
policy, to be decided, originated from those entries done on the list and on the
wiki, and reference existing copyrighted work (stuff that is not on
the ontolog list)
So while lack of reference in subsequent developments of this research
area is unethical (and puzzling) it is also a copyright infringement
(right of attribution). of pre- existing IPR"
In this email you even suggest that somebody intentionally tried to disguise the plagiarism. I am sure that you would not make such statements if you can't back them back. Now is the time, back them up! Who do you accuse? Who took parts of your contributions and presented them after "desperately morphing" them?
Fabian
HI Fabian, Chris
I admit I am multitasking, therefore doing a emails a bit quickly
I am not sure what part of my messages are being twisted, and I hope
not intentionally
1. my claim is non attribution of contribution to discourse, please
refer to earlier messages for details (I am not going to repeat what
already clearly stated over various messages)
2. I claim that the communique contains several contradictions and
conflics between purpose,
scope, wording and overall structure, possibly due to idiosycrasies in
the process, of which 1 is possibly a contributing factor to.
3. I have never mentioned the word plagiarism, other than in response
to Pat C (this morning I think) who says we should have a policy of
non attribution, and I reply that this would make plagiarism much
easier -
in fact, even you guys are confused/confusing as to authorship of the
communique, what a mess!
thanks
PDM
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Fabian Neuhaus <fabian.neuhaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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".
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.
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?
If you can't answer these questions, I think an apology is in order.
Best
Fabian
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/
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|