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?
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)
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
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”?
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