See also: IRC log
<sharper> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012Mar/0055.html
MV: talked about different approaches and propose this one
MV: container with the full papers as sections rather than appendecies
<markel> M.Vigo, G. Brajnik, J. O'Connor (2012) Research note, In W3C Note on Web Accessibility Metrics, Dec 5, 2011. Permalink: …
MV: people can refer to the entire Note or to the individual papers
<markel> M. Naftali, O. Clúa (2011) Integration of Web Accessibility Metrics into a Semi-Automatic evaluation process, In W3C Notes on Web Accessibility Metrics, M.Vigo, G. Brajnik, J. O'Connor (Eds), Dec 5, 2011. Permalink:
MV: but the papers are within the Note "container"
GB: we also provide instructions on how to reference
<shawn> [ Shawn thought we were not going to include the papers in the Note ]
<markel> right
SAZ: why sections rather than appendecies, as previously discussed?
GB: putting them as appendecies gives them a
secondary note
... this is like book chapters
<shawn> SAZ: strong concerns and objections - if so, then would need to be able to discuss & edit section. WG note is work of a Gropu, and represents positions of the Group, so adding contributions from outside the group - is not correct
<shawn> ... if not the work of the group, then need to be included differently with clear disclaimers
GB: do not have the right to ammend or change the
papers
... it is the research note that is the work of the group
... the word "appendix" was never put in the call for paper
MV: see shadi's point but the scientific
committee decides what is good for publishing
... otherwise the point of scientific committee is lost
... also agree that we do not have the right to ammend
SH: not possible to change work
... don't have the copyright
... discussion is about the W3C Note and how the editor views are presented
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say CfP says "Accepted papers will be published - in attributable form - as part of the proceedings and in the ensuing publication, which will be published
SLH: what do we need to do now based and what we
need to do in the future
... [cites text in call for papers]
... are we bound to including them more than an appendix
... agree with the strong discomfort
<shawn> saz: agree to separate what to do in future. agree that we did not agree to change the papers we accepted. the scienfitc committee (SC) does not replace W3C development structure. SC select papers ; however that doesn't change that the W3C WG Note represents the WG.
<shawn> ... those are different information. does not work to put them at the same level
<giorgio> I agree with adding the disclaimer to each of the papers; I don't see why we should "downgrade" papers to appendixes, once they have these disclaimers
MV: if this is the frame that W3C has, then we
have to live with it
... "appendix" has negative connotations
... would never cite an appendix
... low value of citation
<giorgio> and, in the cfp it was not absolutely clear (in written words and also within our discussions) that we had to downgrade papers to appendixes.
MV: maybe need to look for a better way of referencing
SAZ: will double-check that
<shawn> SAZ: will check on W3C issue
<shawn> SIMON: maybe instead of "Appendix", "Contributed Material"
<shawn> SAZ: also protects authors so clear that contributed material is not that of the authors (eg they're not stealing it :-)
<shawn> ... surprised to hear negative about appendix
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about the negative connotations
<giorgio> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appendix says "supplementary material usually attached at the end of a piece of writing "
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask why not encourage citation of the papers in the proceedings? e.g., http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper1/ -- note that we can change the look of
<scribe> ACTION: shadi to check different ways for referencing contributed materials in WG Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/21-rd-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Check different ways for referencing contributed materials in WG Note [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-03-28].
<markel> according to OXD for appendix:
<markel> "An addition subjoined to a document or book, having some contributory value in connection with the subject matter of the work, but not essential to its completeness."
SLH: not sure why we do not want to encourage
citations in the proceedings
... not bound by that particular current layout
GB: yes, could have both
<markel> agree
GB: as long as they have the same permalink guarantees
<shawn> [ OR not include the papers as appendix -- instead make a "publication" that is the WG Note and the papers as proceedings -- nicely formatted together :-]
SAZ: could do both, appendecies for this time since we promised plus proceedings
+1 to shawn
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Talk:Mobile_Pre_CFP
<sharper> Instead of: "Accepted papers will be published - in attributable form - as part of the proceedings and in the ensuing publication, which will be published using the W3C Document License."
<sharper> Consider: "Accepted papers will be published as part of the proceedings. Accepted papers may also be referenced or included (in full or in part) in attributable form in the ensuing publication, which will be published using the W3C Document License."
<shawn> Accepted papers will be published as part of the proceedings, in attributable form, which will be published using the W3C Document License.
<giorgio> looks fine to me
<shadi> +1
<christos> +1
SH: what do we think about this new wording?
<shawn> [ may need a little editing - but that's the idea :-]
+1
<sharper> +1
SH: we all like SLH wording with a little bit of
editing
... the citations part cannot? be discussed until we know something about
permalinks
... Giorgio has came across two ways of citing
<sharper> M.Vigo, G. Brajnik, J. O'Connor (2012) Research note, In W3C Note on Web Accessibility Metrics, Dec 5, 2011. Permalink: …...
<sharper> M. Naftali, O. Clúa (2011) Integration of Web Accessibility Metrics into a Semi-Automatic evaluation process, In W3C Notes on Web Accessibility Metrics, M.Vigo, G. Brajnik, J. O'Connor (Eds), Dec 5, 2011. Permalink: …...
SH: I like this style looks like normal proceedings
what do we think?
+1
SLH: can we say instead of "In W3C Notes" say "symposium proceedings"?
<yeliz> hi all, sorry I am late
<Peter_Thiessen> Sorry work emergency .. :'(
GB: I put "W3C Note.." because I found these type
of resources in the W3C website
... I'm happy with SLH's suggested changes
<yeliz> +1
<Peter_Thiessen> (have no headset so will just be on IRC today)
<shawn> +1
<sharper> +1
<christos> +1
+1
<giorgio> +1
<giorgio> w3c online symposium on web accessbility metrics
<Peter_Thiessen> +1 if this about the call wiki edits from Simon
RESOLUTION: "w3c online symposium on web accessibility metrics" is the new way of referencing
<shawn> Proceedings
<giorgio> M. Naftali, O. Clúa (2011) Integration of Web Accessibility Metrics into a Semi-Automatic evaluation process, In Proc. W3C Online Symposium on Web Accessibility Metrics, M.Vigo, G. Brajnik, J. O'Connor (Eds), Dec 5, 2011. Permalink: …...
RESOLUTION: regarding copyright we agree on "Accepted papers will be published as part of the proceedings, in attributable form, which will be published using the W3C Document License."
<shawn> [ again, might need a little tweaking to make smooth ]
<giorgio> M.Vigo, G. Brajnik, J. O'Connor (2012) Research note, In Proc. W3C Online Symposium on Web Accessibility Metrics, Dec 5, 2011. Permalink: …...
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Main_Page
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Accessibility_Call
RESOLUTION: "w3c online proceedings on web accessibility metrics" is the new way of referencing
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile
SH: who'd like to talk about the suggested changes for the above links?
SLH: I'm suggesting to have a summary for those that get to the main pages (2-3 sentences)
YY: what about combining both links?
... in just one documents
SH: I'm fine with that
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment -- think about the future -- e.g., http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/Overview.html
YY: in general when there is a CFP, it is a single one that encloses all details...self-contained..it helps on the distribution..shouldn't be that long
SLH: thinking about the future, CFP can become historical whereas we need a summary of the symposium
SH: can we have just one CFP and for archival purposes split into two
<Peter_Thiessen> About the mobile call wiki - we mention MWBP. One point I keep coming back to is also including MWABP (http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/) - any thoughts on this?
YY: what's the rational for the "historical" archival of the CFP
SLH: when I go back, the processes involved don't really matter, I'm more interested on the content
YY: I can understand that but people can filter
out this information
... it'll make things easier for future symposium
<christos> I don't think that having a call for papers with backround and the rest means that we can't have also the seperate description for the symposium
SH: I'm agnostic about this
<yeliz> I am not sure
SH: some may find relevant all information, without prejudging what people want in the future
SLH: we already have that
<yeliz> I am OK with either way
SLH: the information related the CFP are lots of printed papers
<yeliz> we can't hear Shadi
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say cross-links will be more apparent in the WAI style (as opposed to the wiki format)
SAZ: when the pages are put on the WAI style it'll be easier, the wiki format does not help to discern
GB: there is some duplicated information when
considering both documents
... the background could be summarized
... and objectives should go on the CFP
SH: this way follows the philosophy of the previous CFP on metrics
SLH: wiki pages are used within the group, the don't go into the WAI site
SH: the previous CFP points to the wiki already
+q
YY: I'm okay with either way
... my experience about the previous symposium I was confused when clicking on
the call for papers -confusing comments about the information architecture on
the site-
SH: we have two options (1) One document (2) More than one document with nice linking
<yeliz> in the current format, we have http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/cfp.html, we have Wikie page and we have the symposium page
One document:;
<christos> +1
+1
<yeliz> +1
<giorgio> +1
<sharper> +1
<Peter_Thiessen> meh sure +1/-1
More than one document:
<shawn> +1 :)
<shawn> [ Shawn notes that one document will not be the call for papers ]
<shadi> +0.5
<Peter_Thiessen> :)
<yeliz> :)
<yeliz> Yes
<yeliz> :)
SLH: that document will not be the CFP, just the symposium page
<yeliz> me too
RESOLUTION: the symposium page will be just one web page.
<Peter_Thiessen> Will this one page be the current page?
<yeliz> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Accessibility_Call
<Peter_Thiessen> ty
<yeliz> This will be the single page
SH: any changes we want to make please send them
to the RDWG list
... we have to change the dates, we lost too much time
... suggest changes during this week; afterwards, it's not going to be
possible
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile
SH: YY and PT ask for comments on the list
<shawn> [ Shawn would like to suggest inviting Henny Swan to participate in Scientific Committee ]
<yeliz> shawn, I agree, inviting Henny would be great
<yeliz> :)
SAZ: in the bullets part "the problem they tried to solve" does not match much
SH: is this necessary?
I think this is inherited from the previous CFP
yes, I agree with you Shadi
SH: if anybody wants to do that I'd be happy
<Peter_Thiessen> (I may have just gone ahead and added MWABP to the Mobile wiki page - no one said no so .. :)
YY: let's ask people about the single page
SH: do we want people to make direct changes on the wiki
YY: I'm okay with that
SH: let's do it this way