While preparing EuroPLoP proceedings for submission to DBLP, it occurred to me that EuroPLoP conference follows versioning model followed by the SKO theory. Each year, authors submit papers, which are being improved for three months of shepherding and, sometimes, for two more months left before the conference. Then, versions of the papers being workshopped at the conference appear (and stay forever on the conference page, see, for instance, papers workshopped at EuroPLoP 2003). After the conference, authors have five more months to refine their papers, and post them to the final and official proceedings (e.g., EuroPLoP 2003 proceedings). What is missing now, is an explicit link between the two versions. However, it is easily fixable – author names and, often, titles remain the same. For instance, have a look at the workshopped and final versions of Pippin Barr’s paper on “Interface Ontology: Creating a Physical World for Computer Interfaces”: several figures were added and the paper was shortened, apart from more subtle changes in the content (to discover latter, you should read both papers). Of course, I guess, not all papers make it to the final proceedings, or some are exactly the same as at the time of the conference.
Similar format is adopted by interdisciplines. As far as I know, some conferences or workshops in computer science also have post-proceedings. This indicates that the real world provides a lot of examples for bootstrapping SKOs (in this case, the versioning aspect) and testing this LiquidPub line of research.