Fabian (01)
let me give you an example to clarify my statements (02)
on this list we discussed at lenght topics such as 'ontology requirements', (03)
there have been for example long discussion between pat hayes and
myself, as well as others, including jack park, one sample thread is
'visual complexity' , and threads that stemmed thereof (04)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-02/msg00024.html (05)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-01/msg00118.html (06)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-02/msg00039.html (07)
and several other scattered places (08)
these discussions were unstructured, and not always appropriately labelled
but they took place and contributed to the discourse nonetheless,
probablyh before you started championing the requirement effort for
the 2008 summit (09)
in one particular thread, pat suggested we drop requiremtnes altogether
(also made several other absurd statements along the way) (010)
i insisted, and made it a point that requirements are important, and
thats where I think my contribution to that particular aspect of the
discussion was made, for example (011)
i am glad that you are now developing and making robust arrangements
and expanding on the issue (012)
the fact that you may have not been aware of prior contributions to
this topic, may be due to the fact that despite making a firm case for
requirements on this list, I never heard that you were working on
requirements because these were not discussed on this list, but
another list started subsequently and without a pubic invitation to
follow up the relevant discussions there
etc (013)
btw - while searching the archives,
I am finding several messages 'not available' in the archive, that may
contain some of the substatiation that is being solicited here
= Peter, whay are some portions of the threads not available? (014)
I may have copies of the relevant parts of the discussion in my
personal files, but it would be much easier if we could locate them
online, for mutual reference and understanding (015)
cheers (016)
PDM (017)
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 7, 2008, at 8:13 PM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
> (018)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (020)
|