[IPOL discuss] Ipol and Dataset

[Jean-Michel Morel]

Answering to:
"And I think mixing published content (articles) and in-review content
(workshops) is confusing and blurring the lines between what IPOL
endorses and when is not verified yet."

I maintain my proposition to mix workshops and articles, because 
otherwise there is no way to organize the existing material.  The 
accepted papers can be clearly indicated to be distinguished from 
workshops (different color, or the mention "submitted" for the 
workshops.  The workshops are "conditionally accepted" and have some 
sort of scientific validity.

Answering to
"I think short titles are better, and we don't need to disctiminate
between image processing and computer vision:

* Demosaicking
* Denoising
* Calibration
* Color and contrast
* Data Set
* Stereo
* Matching
* Feature extraction
* Texture
"

I agree, this is better. But "Data Set" is heterogeneous.

Nicolas Limare a écrit :
>> For some time we can maintain all the information in the main page
>> by removing the abstracts.
> 
> This is just temporary. We will have to give up the idea of 
> "everything on the first page" eventually. No journal provides a
> direct access to all its content.
> 
>> If there is space the author names will be maintained and when it is
>> no more possible to keep all titles on the page we will only keep
>> the topics. Thus it is important that the classification be as
>> comprehensive and clear as possible.
> 
> More important, it is essential to keep it simple, minimal. Don't add
> a new category unless it's really needed. Categories with only only
> one entry can be added later, when (if) they contain more items.
> 
>> Workshops and accepted articles should be mixed, with the mentions
>> "article" or "workshop" or "data set" to distinguish them.
> 
> This is a problem. "article/workshop" is a distinction between
> reviewed, published content, and other uncontrolled contributions. A
> dataset entry is either published (if correctly documented) or not, it
> is not kind of online content.
> 
> And I think mixing published content (articles) and in-review content
> (workshops) is confusing and blurring the lines between what IPOL
> endorses and when is not verified yet.
> 
>> Please, comment and correct.  I am using the "robust" division
>> between Image Processing and Computer Vision.
> 
> I think short titles are better, and we don't need to disctiminate
> between image processing and computer vision:
> 
> * Demosaicking
> * Denoising
> * Calibration
> * Color and contrast
> * Data Set
> * Stereo
> * Matching
> * Feature extraction
> * Texture
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at list.ipol.im
> http://tools.ipol.im/mailman/listinfo/discuss