W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Solomon''s curse and search Bias - a possible solution

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:53:39 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMXe=SqDoGagCZHq=XXe7vHU2SMJGNGXGhXSOH7D8-VRv6xkWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carl Wimmer <carl@correlationconcepts.com>
Cc: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Carl
thanks for reply-


On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 2:47 PM Carl Wimmer <carl@correlationconcepts.com>
wrote:.

>
> Someone has already made a decision as to what is important and what can
> be ignored. The practical result for you is that any elements already
> deemed unimportant are instantly invisible to you, with no way of bringing
> them to the surface.
>

well, in this case, who would be 'someone' ?  Isnt it an algortirmic bias?

>
> You used Google. Now, of course, Google can never be accused of filtering
> any results to their own benefit. That would be unthinkable. Usurping
> results for some self serving economic or political gain is dastardly and I
> am sure they would never do it.
>
> what search engine do you use


> What is required is a complete shift from Search (index and heuristics) as
> a means of addressing information.
>

sounds interesting but I d be tempted to build that on top of index based
search, rather than attempting to replace it


>
> The first requirement is a system that can assemble a complete set of
> possibilities in response to any query, simple or complex.
>

ok- I accept that - at the same time we have spent several decades
attempting to find some
agreement of what we can consider ''complete''  taking the universe as the
top set

what about  ... a systemt that can assemble an economically computable .
configurable and  transparently accountable set of possibilitis.....
Now by that I mean: do show the book entitled solomon curse in the results,
but POINT to
where the book got it name from.... this kind of proventance/traceablity
can be easily automated in todays web
no?  for example : search result 1.>>>>>relation to>>>>result2 etc, where
relation can be anything from
'sounds like'' to ''its a parody of' to inspired by   etc

>
> The second requirement is that the user can select from a list (hopefully
> a very long list) of filtering tools to derive truth from
> connections/possibilities.
>
sure

>
> He or she might wish to see the query results from a variety of viewpoints
> to gain perspective.
>
> Let me give an example to illustrate:
>
> Two facts are in evidence ...
>
> The Alpha Motor Car Company made 100 million in profit last year .... and
> ...
>
> they fired 5,000 workers.
>
> Now comes the viewpoints to interpret the two fact.
>
> From the worker's union point of view (schema) ... those bastards, they
> made a hundred million and they fired 5,000 of the guys that made that
> profit possible for them.
>
> From the shareholder's  point of view (schema) ... we only made 100
> million on all that investment, .. fire 5,000 more workers.
>
> From management's point of view (schema) ... Well, how we managed to make
> any cars at all at the outrageous wages demanded by the union is a miracle.
> The only reason we were able to sell any of those cars was because we
> surrendered to the low offers made by the customers, squeezing us from the
> top. We managed to get some designs for products for next year and we
> ground out 100 million in profit.
>
> I like viewpoints but....  needs some work to implement them in the open
web.... assuming there shall be one.....


> Not as good as Toyota down the street but better than GM up the block. All
> in all, not a bad year.
>
> Now you see the framework for the solution to your problem. The schemas
> are not used to derive the possibilities (that has to be done by a new
> system of addressing information) but they are used to sort and qualify the
> results from as many different points of view as possible to gain real
> perspective.
>
> viewpoints are a technical standard which could be one way to solve this
bias


thanks Carl

> Good question
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/2/2019 9:07 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to share a concern, as I know posts gets read and issued picked
> up and addressed in time
>
> I searched Google today for Solomon Curse, trying to find some references
> to some historical cause and conditions in the first house of David - not
> in relation to a specific race, but more in relation to the history of the
> modern world
> to see if anyone is following up the courses and recourses of history
> https://www.iep.utm.edu/vico/
>
>
> Well, I was shocked to see that the first page of results were all about a
> book and its author, and nothing
> about history came up at all.  I had to add additional words to create
> some context to dig up some
> historical references.
>
> Just wanted to point out that I am very concerned about future generations
> receiving a distorted
> version of history by heavily commercially biased search results when
> typing some search terms and
> getting only/mostly the results from one entity, rather than a
> representation of the plurality of meanings and contexts
>
> Bias is a known problem in searches, however I was hoping that by now we
> would have
> some mechanisms to reduce this bias? Doesn't look like it.
>
> I hope that schema.org could help that by creating metaschemas for
> disambiguation
> or other mechanism, such a representation of context which should include
> at least
> two perspectives: the domain a search term is present, and the
> time/chronology (to show which came first)
>
>  Just a sunday morning note before digging in more confusing knowledge
> from search results
>
> PDM
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2019 07:54:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 3 March 2019 07:54:42 UTC