> [PDM] 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? (01)
[ppy] those would be messages that were in the same message thread
that were not posted to the list. It is analogous to putting your
phone on mute for a bit to have a side conversation, while having a
conference call. This is perfectly acceptable behavior on this, or any
other mailing list. (Your may find more detail by referring to RFC
822.) (02)
Paola, (03)
So far *you do not have a case* in this
IPR/attribution/why-did-I-not-get-invited pursuit of yours. You are
just wasting people's time and disrupting the civility of this
community CWE. Therefore, for the third and last time, as an Ontolog
co-convener, may I request that you please hold your discussion and
proceed as per my earlier message at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2008-05/msg00045.html#nid018 (04)
Fabian, may I also request that you do not respond to this until we
actually do start another list on it (after Paola has had a chance to
go about the above.) (05)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (06)
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:56 AM, <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fabian
>
> let me give you an example to clarify my statements
>
> on this list we discussed at lenght topics such as 'ontology requirements',
>
> 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
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-02/msg00024.html
>
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-01/msg00118.html
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-02/msg00039.html
>
> and several other scattered places
>
>
> 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
>
> in one particular thread, pat suggested we drop requiremtnes altogether
> (also made several other absurd statements along the way)
>
> 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
>
> i am glad that you are now developing and making robust arrangements
> and expanding on the issue
>
> 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
>
> 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?
>
> 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
>
> cheers
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (08)
|