Discussion proposal ESWC2017 workshop on Enabling Decentralised Scholarly Communication

proposal.md

Best practices for self-publishing scholarly metadata

For the ESWC2017 workshop on Enabling Decentralised Scholarly Communication, I'm proposing a discussion session on with the following topic: How to best mark up scholarly articles and webpages that we publish ourselves, in order to result in maximally useful data? I aim to discuss questions such as those I presented at LDOW2017, which include the following:

• How do we prioritize what to publish as RDF?
• What data belongs in a FOAF profile, and what data on a webpage?
• What ontologies should we use?
• Should we describe the same concepts using multiple ontologies?
• Should we reuse identifiers, mint our own, or both?
• Should we publish data in named RDF graphs?

The proposed outcome would be (a way to) a guidance document for self-publishers of scholarly metadata.

Yes, I think this works. It has some overlap with ongoing efforts but that's fine. Maybe really distinguishing between "self-publishing" to general publishing of scholarly articles. The latter was partly intended to be picked up here in this CG: https://github.com/w3c/scholarly-html . The former has many approaches as you know.

I think that the workshop can dedicate 30 minutes, so the real question is whether you want to get a sense of what would be agreeable from the attendees, and maybe initialise the output with that information.

Aside: I'm hoping to get back to preparing that more in-depth guideline for authors to contribute to LDOW and elsewhere. Was going to put that up as an article on the LR site. Maybe we can align all of this at https://github.com/linkedresearch/ (will move the existing issues from 'info' to 'linkedresearch.org' repo, and just work with the site repo).

Thanks, @csarven, made it specific for self-publishing from the beginning. A thirty minute timeslot along the lines of what you write would be great!

Hey @RubenVerborgh, we're thinking of organising the schedule so that you have 10-15 minutes to introduce this topic and then we have a general discussion session following yours and Dave DR's talks along the lines of "decentralisation - why do we need third party publishers" (the inverse being related to your topic, ie. "why can't we publish this stuff ourselves") , perhaps with you and Dave at the front panel-style, for the remaining time (~30 mins). Does that sound okay to you? We can narrow down / focus the title of the discussion topic some more if that's helpful.

Well, my intention was to have something really interactive, where I say as few as possible and let everything come from the audience. So in that sense, panel-style might not be the best format, as then it's typically the panel talking. My idea was to collaboratively come up with a list of best practices, rather than defending the topic of "why self-publish".

So I don't think that's a good fit for what I have proposed, but I'm very flexible, so I can adapt to your proposal or I'm equally happy not having this topic if it doesn't fit the schedule. I'll be at the workshop in any case 😄

Oh I see, I think I misunderstood slightly.. no we can work around what you have said. We can turn the first discussion session into a proactive session as you describe, led by you, that's no problem. Seems very useful to do what you suggest and come up with a list. I'll update the discussion session title to reflect that.

Looks excellent, thanks a lot!