Special Call: Semantic Web Tools and Systems

special call for papers on

SEMANTIC WEB TOOLS AND SYSTEMS

deadline extended to 31st of July

Description

The "Semantic Web" journal invites submissions of short papers describing mature Semantic Web related tools and systems. These reports should be brief and pointed, indicating clearly the capabilities of the described tool or system. It is strongly encouraged, that the described tools or systems are free, open, and accessible on the Web. If this is not possible, then they have to be made available to the reviewers. For commercial tools and systems, exceptions can be arranged through the editors.

Submissions will be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Quality, importance, and impact of the described tool or system. (2) Clarity, illustration, and readability of the describing paper, which shall convey to the reader both the capabilities and the limitations of the tool.

Topics of Interest

We invite submissions on all kinds of tools and systems related to the semantic web, including, but not limited to, the following.

* ontology editors
* ontology engineering systems
* Semantic Web development toolkits
* ontology learning and acquistion tools
* Annotation tools
* ontology alignment and merging tools
* ontology revision and evolution tools
* ontology evaluation tools
* RDF stores
* RDF reasoners
* OWL reasoners
* RIF editors and reasoners
* Semantic Wiki engines
* Semantic Desktop systems
* Semantic browsers
* Semantic search tools
* Semantic Mashup tools

If you are uncertain if your tool or system is suitable for this call, please direct your inquiry to Pascal.

Important Dates

deadline extended

Submission Deadline: 31st of July, 2010.
Acceptance Notification: 30th of September, 2010
Final Paper: 31st of October, 2010

papers will be processed as they come in, and notification is planned earlier in these cases

Submissions

Submissions should be 8-10 pages in length. Exceptions can be arranged, please contact Pascal for inquiries.

Please see the submission information and guidelines. When entering your manuscript into the review system, please state "Tools and Systems" in the cover letter. Please also note the journal's open review process.

Contact

Pascal Hitzler, Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, USA
Krzysztof Janowicz, Pennsylvania State University, USA

Please direct all inquiries to Pascal.

Editorial Board

Claudia d'Amato, Università degli Studi di Bari, Italy
Sören Auer, Universität Leipzig, Germany
Lora Aroyo, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Boyan Brodaric, Geological Survey of Canada, Canada
Philipp Cimiano, Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Oscar Corcho, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Bernardo Cuenca-Grau, Oxford University, UK
Michel Dumontier, Carleton University, Canada
Mark Gahegan, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Aldo Gangemi, ISTC-CNR Rome, Italy
Giancarlo Guizzardi, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil
Manfred Hauswirth, DERI, National University of Ireland, Galway
Tom Heath, Talis, UK
Rinke Hoekstra, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Andreas Hotho, Universität Würzburg, Germany
Eero Hyvönen, Aalto University, Finland
Werner Kuhn, University of Muenster, Germany
Thomas Lukasiewicz, Oxford University, UK
Axel Polleres, DERI, National University of Ireland, Galway
Martin Raubal, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Marta Sabou, The Open University, UK
Christoph Schlieder, University of Bamberg, Germany
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, The University of Texas at El Paso, USA
Jie Tang, Tsinghua University Beijing, China
Kunal Verma, Accenture, USA

Comments

Dear Pascal and Krzysztof,

The Semantic web journal wants to publish system papers. I think that this is a very good idea. However, from past experience, I am a bit worrying about the attitude of computer scientists with respect to such kinds of papers.

There are similar types of papers in the area of life sciences. Typically, since 1993, the first issue of Nucleic acid research [1] is dedicated to its "Database issue" (and more recently there has been a web service issue). The papers there are very short and describe the availability of a particular accessible database. The reason this has existed is tied to the strong structure of research in life sciences in which conference papers do not count as a publication, review papers (the most cited papers) do not count as a publication, and what is important is citations rather than papers.

Molecular biologists understood that they were relying heavily on online resources, developed and maintained by researchers. However, since this work was not rewarded, there was no incentive to maintain them and such resources were closed overnight. Without a paper to be cited, researchers developing systems were wasting their time by usual performance measures. Indeed, acknowledging the use of a system by putting a URL in a footnote is not considered a serious citation by any citation database. Moreover, in these domains, a system does not count as a result worth of primary literature.

Hence, papers describing databases in Nucleic acid research were a placeholder for citations from people who use these systems. The consequence, is that such papers where going through a light review which was basically checking the adequacy of the system to the journal issue and providing some editing remarks afterwards. However, because this is not customary in computer science, there are some problems with the way system papers are reviewed.

Indeed, in computer science, or informatics, there are two kinds of systems and associated papers. On the one hand, it is quite common to write systems for papers, i.e., the goal is to publish a paper because this is the way science progresses, and, as a proof of concept or as a support for an experiment, the authors write a system, more or less quick and dirty. The system has no value in itself and the paper is judged on its content.

On the other hand, in papers for systems, this has to be exactly the opposite. The paper has no real value in itself, only the system has value. The purpose of the paper is sometimes to advertise a system and, moreover, to be a placeholder for citations. What counts is that the system works, that it is available, that it is used by people. Hence, reviews about the lack of depth of the paper or suggestions about how the system should be different are actually out of place.

It is very difficult for researchers, and specifically researchers in computer science, to judge papers on something else than the paper's intrinsic merits. I also have difficulties to do this (I did it: I would not had accepted the paper as a regular paper, but as a system paper it was fine).

Hence, dear editors [2], I would be very obliged to know what kind of "system papers" are expected by the Semantic web journal and that this expectation from you be clear for all reviewers [3].

Sincerely yours,
Jérôme Euzenat,
INRIA & LIG.

---
[1] http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/nar/for_authors/msprep_databa...
[2] Full disclosure: I plan to submit to the Semantic web journal call for system papers.
[3] See the particularly precise account of what is accepted or not and why in: Michael Galperin, Guy Cochrane, Nucleic Acid Research annual database issue and the NAR online molecular biology database collection in 2009, Nucleic acid research 37(D):1-4, 2009 http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/suppl_1/D1

Dear Jerome,

thanks a lot for the feedback, which indeed does make a lot of sense to me.

As a response, let me give you some annotations on the general call for such papers, as can be found on http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/authors

Reports on tools and systems – short papers describing mature ...

Note the "mature." This does, imo, exclude "proof of concept" implementations which usually accompany papers.

... Semantic Web related tools and systems. These reports should be brief and pointed, indicating clearly the capabilities of the described tool or system. It is strongly encouraged, that the described tools or systems are free, open, and accessible on the Web.

This is for evaluation purposes. Because, as you rightly point out, "the paper has no real value in itself, only the system has value."

If this is not possible, then they have to be made available to the reviewers. For commercial tools and systems, exceptions can be arranged through the editors. These submissions will be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Quality, ...

this excludes quick-and-dirty implementations

Or like you said below:

"What counts is that the system works, ..."

... importance, and impact ...

"... that it is used by people."

... of the described tool or system. (2) Clarity, illustration, and readability of the describing paper, ...

That's clear, I guess.

... which shall convey to the reader both the capabilities and the limitations of the tool.

Note the mention of "limitations." An advertising paper won't do.

Note also, that the review criteria explicitly do not mention things like originality or novelty. Even if your tool is based on the work of somebody else - if it's your tool that's being used (because it may simply be better implemented) then we want your report, and not the report of the "earlier" tool which might have been the first but is not really usable.

I hope this clarifies things a bit. I agree with you that it is very important to point this out, and it is excellent that your comment provided another opportunity to do so :)

On another note - one of the good things about our open review process is that everybody can spot it on the journal website if a reviewer, for some reason, didn't get into the right "spirit" for a systems paper review. I.e. it is easily corrected by the community/us.

Best Regards,

Pascal.