Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Town hall meeting at ISWC2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Town hall meeting at ISWC2011

757
views

Published on

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
757
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ISWC 2011 Town Hall
  • 2. What is this meeting all about?• Main goal: get feedback from the conference participants (you!) on what we should do better or different next year• Focus: the scientific content of the conference, not the logistics
  • 3. New events this year• Should we keep them? Should we do them differently? – Outrageous ideas track – Minute madness – Meet the editors – Linked Data-a-thon – Future funding by EU and beyond• Ideas for special sessions for next year?
  • 4. Tracks• Do we have too many tracks? Too few? – Research track – In-use track – Industry track• Do you know where you should submit?
  • 5. Workshops and Tutorials• Balance different this year: more workshops (16), fewer tutorials (5)• Is this balance better than 50-50?• Ideas for workshops and tutorials next year – What would you like to see?
  • 6. The Panels• 2 Panels this year – Meet Editors (Informational) – Deathmatch (Debate)• Do we want panels? – More or less? – What kind?
  • 7. Events for students• How can we continue to increase the prestige of the Doctoral Consortium? Should we try?• Other events for students – Ideas?
  • 8. Conference attendance• What makes it hard for people to attend the conference? (Please, limit to the things that we can change!) – Tight schedule? – Not enough venues to present something? – Other?
  • 9. Outrageous IdeasResearch Papers
  • 10. Outrageous Ideas Track• 24 Submissions• 5 selected by PC members for presentation• 19 available online for public vote• PC & Chairs• Criteria – Is the idea outrageous? – Is it something new? – Are the reasons it is outrageous made clear? – Are concrete use cases given? – Are the challenges to realizing the idea made clear? – Is this idea important for the development of our community?
  • 11. Outrageous Ideas Stats (18p)• Challenges – 2.4 (0.58)• Importance to field – 2.2 (0.57)• Use cases – 2.1 (0.48)• Presentation of idea – 1.9 (0.58)• Outrageousness - 1.6 (0.73)• Novelty – 1.5 (0.66)
  • 12. The Reviewing
  • 13. Reviews Process• Author provide title, keywords, abstract• Reviewers bid (primarily on title) – not all reviewers bid (and/or don’t indicate topics)• Author provide full papers – 1/3 abstracts are not submitted as full papers• Review assignment based on bids (3 rev. per paper)• Initial notification of authors & rebuttals• Reviews discussion and editing, considering rebuttals• Meta-reviews• Special Emergency Review Team (SERT)• SPC Meeting
  • 14. Quality of Reviews• Consistency problems between reviewers – Numerical scoring – Review quality• Rebuttal consideration• Summer period – Late reviews – Participation in discussion• Proactiveness in SPC members – Meta-reviews not always reflect all three reviews – Comments not integrated in meta-reviews – Chasing missing reviews• Maybe a reviewer training program? – Quantitatively the same outcome
  • 15. Rebuttals– Useful?– Infuriating?– Your thoughts as an author?– Your thoughts as a reviewer?– Should other tracks (in-use) have it?
  • 16. SWSA 10-Year Award• We used Google Scholar citations for papers from SWWS 2001 + sanity check• There is no perfect way to assess impact• Is there a better proxy than citation counts? What is it? Does it need to be “objective”?
  • 17. What’s anInfluential Paper?what metadata dowe need toidentify reliablyinfluential papers?
  • 18. Top cited papers from 2001 SWWS• 338: Anupriya Ankolekar, Mark H. Burstein, Jerry R. Hobbs, Ora Lassila, David L. Martin, Sheila A. McIlraith, Srini Narayanan, Massimo Paolucci, Terry R. Payne, Katia P. Sycara, Honglei Zeng "DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services"• 273: Harold Boley, Said Tabet, Gerd Wagner "Design Rationale for RuleML: A Markup Language for Semantic Web Rules”• 226: Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini "A Framework for Ontology Integration”• 225: Michel C. A. Klein, Dieter Fensel "Ontology versioning on the Semantic Web”• 220: Jane Hunter "Adding Multimedia to the Semantic Web: Building an MPEG-7 ontology”
  • 19. Past ISWC Best Papers• ISWC-2009: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo: On the Semantic Web [5] Rank 30/53, max 43, 5 papers > 20.• ISWC-2008: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo Large Data on the Semantic Web [66]. Rank 3/57, max 70, 4 papers > 50.• ISWC-2007: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo. Data on the Semantic Web [27]• ISWC-2006: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo. Queries on the Semantic Web [212]. Rank 1/72, 6 papers > 100. bad data• ISWC-2005: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo. Social Networks on the Semantic Web. [447] Rank 1/72, 8 papers>100. bad data• ISWC-2004: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo. Knowledge Bases on the Semantic Web [170] Rank 8/54, max 489. 17 papers > 100.• ISWC-2003: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo. Reasoning on the Semantic Web. [70] Rank 23/54, max 498. 20 papers>100• ISWC-2002: Chris Welty & Lora Aroyo. Ontologies on the Semantic Web. [36] Rank 23/41, max 1890. 12 papers > 100.
  • 20. Past ISWC Best Papers• ISWC-2009: Ugur Kuter & Jennifer Golbeck: Semantic Web Service Composition in Social Environments [5] Rank 30/53, max 43, 5 papers > 20.• ISWC-2008: Matthew Horridge, Bijan Parsia & Ulrike Sattler for Laconic and Precise Justifications in OWL [66]. Rank 3/57, max 70, 4 papers > 50.• ISWC-2007: Dimitris Zeginis, Yannis Tzitzikas and Vassilis Christophides. On the Foundations of Computing Deltas between RDF models [27]• ISWC-2006: Marcelo Arenas, Jorge Perez and Claudio Gutierrez. Semantics and Complexity of SPARQL [212]. Rank 1/72, 6 papers > 100. bad data• ISWC-2005: Peter Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. [447] Rank 1/72, 8 papers>100. bad data• ISWC-2004: Y. Guo, Z. Pan, and J. Heflin. An Evaluation of Knowledge Base Systems for Large OWL Datasets [170] Rank 8/54, max 489. 17 papers > 100.• ISWC-2003: Aimilia Magkanaraki, Val Tannen, Vassilis Christophides, Dimitris Plexousakis. Viewing the Semantic Web through RVL Lenses. [70] Rank 23/54, max 498. 20 papers>100• ISWC-2002: Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Jérôme Siméon. Building the Semantic Web on XML. [36] Rank 23/41, max 1890. 12 papers > 100.
  • 21. What is SWSA?• Semantic Web Science Association (SWSA) – A committee of 12-15 members (iswsa.org) – Main role: manage the ISWC conference series • Decide on the location of each conference – Calls for bids are out ~2.5 years before the conference – Rotates location Americas/Europe/Asia-Pacific • Appoint and approve general chair and program chairs for the conference• If you have feedback on ISWC in general and ideas for future conferences, email swsa-feedback@lists.uni-karlsruhe.de
  • 22. Any other thoughts? Gripes?• What can we do better next year? Email to: swsa-feedback@lists.uni-karlsruhe.de