|
|
 |
|
|
Do NOT use your browser's back button. Use the Inbox button to refresh your messages.
|
|
| Message
7 of 7 |
| From: |
Kevin McCurley <mccurley@almaden.ibm.com> |
| To: |
<bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
|
| Date: |
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:04:21 -0800 |
| Subject: |
RE: WWW2003 final submission guidelines fail to follow the W3C |
|
Bob,
Thanks for your response. As someone
who has done considerable work on production of digital libraries in the
past, I can appreciate that there are many things to be balanced. I
just found that this policy had a particularly bad set of requirements.
Incidentally, the multiple author policy
at ACM varies from one conference to another, and it is easy to find examples
that have different requirements (e.g., OOPSLA and CHI).
thanks again for the response.
Kevin McCurley
Phone: +1-408-927-1838
email: mccurley@almaden.ibm.com
|
| "Bob Hopgood" <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
03/05/2003 04:41 AM
Please respond to bhopgood
|
To:
"'Kevin McCurley'" <mccurley@almaden.ibm.com>
cc:
<bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
Subject:
RE: WWW2003 final submission guidelines
fail to follow the W3C recommendations. |
Kevin,
Not sure who should be replying (probably not me
but here goes). IW3C2 is interested eventually in getting all the
papers for all the Web Conferences online with good linkage between
them. It is quite a big job as the early Conferences have a range
of styles and formats. Wendy Hall's Group at Southampton have a system
that can automatically scrape the Title, Author Affiliation, Keywords,
References etc information from the way most of the papers are
defined and put this into a hypertext database without too much
human intervention. That is pretty well complete apart from one or two
years. It also is able to check and automatically link to Paper References even
when the link is not given.
We are aiming at getting a format that everybody
can agree to for the Conference in New York. So we were trying to
do a half way house for Budapest where ACM, Wendy and the Conference
people who were doing the online version would be happy. The styling
is nearly a copy of what ACM requires and uses their rules. ACM may produce
the CD version and want an electronic version so the electronic version
is not just a concern of IW3C2. (Probably worth making the point that IW3C2
is not equal to W3C. One runs the Conference and the other generates the
standards).
I don't have any real disagreement with the points
you make but the solution for 2003 was a pragmatic one based on where
we were. It has been a hard job convincing people that it was now
viable to expect authors to submit papers in XHTML format even.
The multiple authors with the same affiliation is
an ACM problem. That is what they state they require. One of the
things we were trying not to do was to get people to put the papers
in using two different formats that would double the work they had
to do.
I will make sure you get a chance to comment on
the format proposed for New York.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin McCurley [mailto:mccurley@almaden.ibm.com]
Sent: 28 February 2003 02:03
To: info@www2003.org
Cc: laszlo.kovacs@sztaki.hu; chen@research.att.com;
horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk; lawrence-www@necmail.com; soumen@cse.iitb.ac.in;
praghava@verity.com; rubin@cs.jhu.edu; bal@microsoft.com; brian_mcbride@hp.com;
marie@w3.org; timbl@w3.org; Ravi Kumar; David P Williamson; Ronald
Fagin; Dandapani Sivakumar; John Tomlin; bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk;
gergo.kiss@sztaki.hu
Subject: WWW2003 final submission guidelines
fail to follow the W3C recommendations.
I am writing to all of you regarding the submission
guidelines for the WWW 2003 conference. As I was preparing
my final version according to the submission guidelines, it became
apparent to me that they are inappropriate for a W3C conference.
The acceptance letter for this conference says that
both pdf and XHTML should be submitted, which is completely reasonable.
Unfortunately the guidlines for submitting XHTML are misguided.
The problem is that METADATA IS NOT THE SAME AS VISUAL MARKUP,
and the two should not be mixed. The guidelines specifically
state that metadata should be enclosed in h1, h2, and h3 tags with
class attributes to indicate the type (e.g., author and affiliation).
This is simply the wrong way to encode metadata into a document.
According the the W3C standards, there are at least
two ways to include metadata according to the XHTML specification.
- use the <meta> tag of the HTML 4.01
specification (see section 7.4.4 of the spec http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4
)
- the use of RDF in an external namespace
as described in the XHTML specification (see section 3.1 in http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
)
Neither of these are recommended in the submission guidelines
at http://www2003.org/www2003-submission.htm
To see an example of why the proposed method is a bad
idea and why the XHTML guidelines separate metadata from visual layout,
you need only consider the paper that I am working on. This
paper has six authors with a single shared affiliation and address.
The natural way to lay this out visually would be to list the
authors, followed by their shared affiliation and address. The
ACM has their own weird rules about how to visually place six authors
on their proceedings, and each publisher will have their own rules (some
require affiliations in footnotes). Unfortunately, the guidelines
say that an H2 tag with affiliation should accompany every H1 tag
specifying the author. This mixes the metadata binding of the
affiliation to the author with the visual layout of the affiliation
with the author, which clearly does not make sense in this circumstance.
If I follow the guidelines, then I end up with something that
looks visually comical, with the same affiliation and address repeated
six times. If I use good typographical practices, then I fail
to encode the metadata to indicate the affiliation and address of
the authors. This one example of why it is not a good idea to mix
metadata and visual layout.
ACM's digital library requests PDF submission formats,
so I presume that the XHTML version is requested specifically by
the W3C. The confusion between visual layout requirements and
structural requirements for machine-readable metadata is a long-standing
problem in the web, and is clearly one that the W3C has been trying
to address with the semantic web initiative. If the W3C is
going to have these well thought out standards for metadata and structure
on the web, then it seems to me that authors for the premier web
conference should at least be encouraged to use them correctly.
Kevin McCurley
IBM Almaden Research Center
Phone: +1-408-927-1838
email: mccurley@almaden.ibm.com
|
| info@www2003.org
Sent by: tbyte@sztaki.hu
02/24/03 10:47 AM
|
To:
Kevin McCurley/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject:
WWW2003 - Camera-ready papers |
From tbyte Mon Feb 24 16: 47 MET 2003
Dear Kevin S. McCurley,
We kindly inform you that the information concerning
the preparation of
the final camera-ready papers has been updated
on the WWW2003 web site.
The Permission and Release Form is also available
and the deadline of
sending the form back has been modified. The
new deadline is 12 March 2003
and it should be submitted directly to Sheridan
Printing Co., Inc.
(for address see the form).
Best regards,
Viktor Richter
WWW2003 Secretariat
|
|
|
Oxford
Brookes University Computer Services
Maintained by WebMail
Administrator
|
|
