I-CHALLENGE 2012 : Linked Data Cup
Dates:
When Sep 5, 2012 – Sep 7, 2012
Where Graz, Austria
Submission Deadline Apr 2, 2012
Notification Due May 7, 2012
Final Version Due Jun 4, 2012
From the call for submissions:
The yearly organised Linked Data Cup (formerly Triplification Challenge) awards prizes to the most promising innovation involving linked data. Four different technological topics are addressed: triplification, interlinking, cleansing, and application mash-ups. The Linked Data Cup invites scientists and practitioners to submit novel and innovative (5 star) linked data sets and applications built on linked data technology.
Although more and more data is triplified and published as RDF and linked data, the question arises how to evaluate the usefulness of such approaches. The Linked Data Cup therefore requires all submissions to include a concrete use case and problem statement alongside a solution (triplified data set, interlinking/cleansing approach, linked data application) that showcases the usefulness of linked data. Submissions that can provide measurable benefits of employing linked data over traditional methods are preferred.
Note that the call is not limited to any domain or target group. We accept submissions ranging from value-added business intelligence use cases to scientific networks to the longest tail of information domains. The only strict requirement is that the employment of linked data is very well motivated and also justified (i.e. we rank approaches higher that provide solutions, which could not have been realised without linked data, even if they lack technical or scientific brilliance). (emphasis added)
I don’t know what the submissions are going to look like but the conference organizers should get high marks for academic honesty. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone say:
we rank approaches higher that provide solutions, which could not have been realised without linked data, even if they lack technical or scientific brilliance
We have all seen challenges with qualifying requirements but I don’t recall any that would privilege lesser work because of a greater dependence on a requirement. Or at least that would publicly claim that was the contest policy. Have there been complaints from technically or scientifically brilliant approaches about judging in the past?
Will have to watch the submissions and results to see if technically or scientifically brilliant approaches get passed over in favor of lesser approaches. Will be a signal to all first rate competitors to seek recognition elsewhere.