While papers submitted to the scientific track may provide evidence of scientific contribution through applications and evaluations (see 4. and 5. of the conference Topics of Interest), papers submitted to the Semantic Web In Use Track should be organised around some of or all of the following aspects:- Description of concrete problems in specific application domains, for which Semantic Web technologies can provide a solution.
- Description of concrete problems in specific application domains, for which Semantic Web technologies can provide a solution.
- Description of an implemented application of Semantic Web technologies in a specific domain
- Assessment of the pros and cons of using Semantic Web technologies to solve a particular business problem in a specific domain
- Comparison with alternative or competing approaches using conventional or competing technologies
- Assessment of the costs and benefits of the application of Semantic Web Technologies, e.g. time spent on implementation and deployment, efforts involved, user acceptance, returns on investment
- Evidence of deployment of the application, and assessment/evaluation of usage/uptake.
One thing I would encourage here (in the tradition of the Journal of Negative Results), is that people remember that negative experience is still experience. While the SemWeb technology stack has much to recommend it, there are also many circumstances when it isn’t quite the right fit. Or when alternative SemWeb approaches (GRDDL, SQL2SPARQL, …) can bring similar advantages with lower costs. I would like to see some thoughtful and painfully honest writeups of cases where Semantic Web technologies haven’t quite worked out as planned. Technology projects fail all the time; there’s nothing to be ashamed of. But when it’s a technology project that uses standards and tools I’ve contributed to, I really want to know more about what went wrong, if anything went wrong. ESWC2009 seems a fine place to share experiences and to learn how to better use these technologies…