Open johanneskiesel opened 3 years ago
scmmmh
commented
3 years ago A very good question. We'll definitely add a reference to the SIGIR-specific badging.
My own view on this is that we should try out what already exists first and only add to that when there is a clear gap.
ibi-vpetras
commented
3 years ago One aspect that we mention in the manifesto is that archiving the resources (what SIGIR-badging calls artifacts) on publicly available, open access, long-term archives (repositories) for sustainabilitiy (prinicple #5 and level 3 and higher). I don't see this particularly addressed in the badging document, but maybe it's somewhere? In our group, we also discussed what an appropriate way to document IIR user-oriented experiments (i.e. data model) would be. This could be further specified, I believe.
johanneskiesel
commented
3 years ago It is true, archiving and public access are not addressed. Not sure if they should be addressed. So this might be some difference to point out.
Concerning user-oriented experiments, the badging mentions your BIIRRR'2019 paper at the very end.
The SIGIR Artifact Evaluation Committee is on its way (I'm a junior member, and it is kind of operational now):
https://sigir.org/general-information/acm-sigir-artifact-badging/
This committee exists to tackle your principle 7 (CHIIR is explicitly mentioned in the document). The manifesto mentions the general ACM badges, but I think it should also link to the SIGIR-specific badging.
Do you think the badging, as outlined in the document, misses a specific point of interactive IR and thus needs adaptation? Or would you say that this badging already is a solid implementation of one of the manifesto's concrete actions?
Sorry for not asking in the paper session; I had connection issues at the wrong time. Maybe this place is even the better one ;)