modified: REVIEW.txt

modified:   blog4.tex
modified:   evaluatingfosscontributions.te
modified:   firstpost.tex

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/evaluatingfosscontributions.tex b/evaluatingfosscontributions.tex
index 4d2cc68..4b6d34b 100644
--- a/evaluatingfosscontributions.tex
+++ b/evaluatingfosscontributions.tex
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 \secstar{Evaluating FOSS Contributions}
 \vskip 2pt
 
-Counting FOSS contributions towards research grants actually threw open
-a new area of investigation as such I guess. It is about evaluation of the novelty
+Counting FOSS contributions for research grants actually threw open
+a new area of investigation as such, I guess. It is about evaluation of the novelty
 factor of contribution to FOSS project. As we know, in any field of research,
 evaluation metrics is a big area of investigation and people come up with new
 distances and measures every now and then (even we are in the middle of
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ projects cite papers published (and some regularly publish papers) in main
 stream journals to get acknowledged for their novelty and to ensure the novelty of
 the algorithms they use. Many times author's notes are used in FOSS projects to
 report on real time usage, easier adaptation etc. (many plugins in GIMP are
-developments of European univ. PhDs. A famous one is, a resynthesizer plugin).
+developments of European university PhDs. A famous one is, a resynthesizer plugin).
 
 However, the idea of evaluating the novelty factor solely considering the contribution
 to the project requires a new metric to evaluate itself too. The normal factors
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ and ensuring that the evaluation framework is strong enough and thus reliable,
 we can make some progress.
 
 It will also work as a counter measure to the now existing
-monopolistic attitude of IEEE, ACM etc. in case of academic publishing. The
+monopolistic attitude of IEEE, ACM etc. In case of academic publishing, the
 only thing that I worry about are the arguments against the review of documentation 
 (like how implementation of something in one project will ensure its
 reimplementation capability in different scenario if the documentation
@@ -80,9 +80,8 @@ That usually does not come under the aims of the project and they don't care.
 But the ones who are doing the contribution and waiting for it to be counted
 towards their Degree or Salary should be aware of it and do it.
 
-Collaborative
-publishing can be very well used and an example of wikipedia can support the claim.
-Acceptance by user community is a validation of novelty. But how the detail
+Collaborative publishing can be very well used and an example of wikipedia can support 
+the claim. Acceptance by user community is a validation of novelty. But how the detail
 or contribution is accepted may not always be a measure of novelty
 (some contributions, very novel, might not trigger much response, some
 trivial ones might trigger huge response). So, in order to evaluate novelty and the
@@ -92,12 +91,11 @@ This, along with a must do documentation of the contribution in a collaborative
 peer reviewed wiki kind of system, should ensure freedom of the knowledge
 generated out of the process.
 
-It is a matter of not just accepting FOSS to
-mainstream academic research, but more or less bringing back the idea of
-freedom to the academia. We should prepare a draft framework (I don't have
-much of an idea on how to prepare it). Then should try evaluating some recent
-contributions to some projects on basis of this framework (we can use SILPA
-as one of the sample projects). Then present this to the world as a method
+It is not just a matter of accepting FOSS to mainstream academic research, but 
+more or less bringing back the idea of freedom to the academia. We should prepare 
+a draft framework (I don't have much of an idea on how to prepare it). Then should try 
+evaluating some recent contributions to some projects on basis of this framework (we can 
+use SILPA as one of the sample projects). Then present this to the world as a method
 to count novelty in collaborative projects without using the normal way of
 status of publication (all FOSS projects maintained by universities or research
 organizations cite their publications to show novelty).