- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:21:56 -0500
- To: public-credibility@w3.org
- Message-ID: <86bb1dcf-01f5-6797-e21a-6016b58a80ea@verizon.net>
PDf/A-3 offer the potential for the best of both human- and machine-readability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document On 2/20/2020 6:16 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > > >For many people, PDF counts as "searchable and machine readable", > > > > > That’s because PDF is an open international standard (ISO 32000) that > enables both human and machine readable content. > > Leonard > > *From: *Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> > *Date: *Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 4:55 PM > *To: *"public-credibility@w3.org" <public-credibility@w3.org> > *Subject: *Re: journalism award signals > *Resent-From: *<public-credibility@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 4:55 PM > > Unfortunately, the GPRAMA is unlikely to lead government contractors > like the national labs to make their performance reports available in > truly machine-readable formats, as (a) it applies to agencies, not > contractors, and (b) it does not specify a definition of > machine-readable. For many people, PDF counts as "searchable and > machine readable", and indeed many of the contractors already meet > that bar. From what I can see, the GPRAMA really doesn't do more than > require that information about the planning of the government itself > be made available to humans via computers. It's a good step, but to my > mind at least, it doesn't exemplify particularly tech-savvy > legislation. I don't see it as a means to glean reliable credibility > signals. > > -Annette > > On 2/19/20 4:41 PM, Owen Ambur wrote: > > Point well taken, Annette. Beyond peer recognition however, it > would be good to make salient the underlying performance > indicators specifying what excellence truly means. > > In the case of U.S. federal agencies, section 10 > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Fopen-machine-readable-government-owen-ambur%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552946899&sdata=ww2nGwnkjuMmdzOiGT3046CktZ9Fi2vafci%2FM9cOPx4%3D&reserved=0> > of the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) requires them to publish > their performance reports in machine-readable format. It would be > good if some of the laureates associated with DOE and LBNL could > help lead the way. > > In the meantime, on their behalf, I have published their strategic > plans in open, standard, machine-readable StratML format at > https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#DOE > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstratml.us%2Fdrybridge%2Findex.htm%23DOE&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552946899&sdata=gyaQ%2FzIPiznDebkOvG9dJ0D0Ok0CWdg%2FSEliazYOzWs%3D&reserved=0> > > Perhaps someday news organizations will be held accountable not > only for doing likewise but also paying greater deference to > reliable data than to story telling based so heavily on personal > perspectives. If not, more of what we already see is what we are > likely to get, both literally as well as figuratively. > > BTW, here's OKF's data journalism guide in StratML format: > https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/DJH5MFGwStyle.xml > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstratml.us%2Fcarmel%2Fiso%2FDJH5MFGwStyle.xml&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552956895&sdata=flyJdr2q%2BjQ9aWCWblD6y5Gfvy3wFl9JuKyhZLHJlyw%3D&reserved=0> > Unfortunately, it says noting about the Foundations for > Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (FEBPA > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstratml.us%2Fdrybridge%2Findex.htm%23FEBPA&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552956895&sdata=TthR4rA9w9Al597ZJlU5Ftbvp8EyiqqQ6x11g8LfGFc%3D&reserved=0>), > including Title II, the OPEN Government Data Act (OGDA > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Fopen-gov-data-act-machine-readable-records-owen-ambur%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552966892&sdata=lZajWBIJqdg4BKuYtoAEhanxQAn7eaD3tCEtn3wlTwg%3D&reserved=0>). > > It is ironic that Congress, which is held in such low regard, > seems to be so far ahead of the news media, the "knowledge" > community, and the W3C in recognizing the importance of open, > standard schema-compliant, machine-readable public records. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMachine-readable_document&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552966892&sdata=0jrUqK7y%2BP0mGB6SnQe1moffRGfBse35RGP5FQwY6yk%3D&reserved=0> > > > Owen > > On 2/19/2020 6:59 PM, Annette Greiner wrote: > > One of the things that the awards idea makes me think about is > evaluating not just a site but the organization that publishes > it. Scientific organizations don't get journalism awards, but > their researchers may well get prestigious scientific awards, > like Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. I work at a lab that's > pretty conspicuous for its Nobels, so I don't want to > emphasize that more than it deserves, but in general I want to > make sure this list doesn't end up only making sense for > journalistic sites. > > -Annette > > On 2/19/20 9:21 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > On 2/19/20 11:48 AM, Sastry, Nishanth wrote: > > Hello Sandro, all, > > This just a quick email to introduce myself as a new > member to the group, from King’s College London. I had > applied to the credible web WG several months back, > but got approved by our University contact just days > before, and have since been added to this email list. > > We have done a bunch of work looking at > > 1. hyper partisan websites, in the context of the US > Presidential elections: > > * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/nrswww-2018-b/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnms.kcl.ac.uk%2Fnishanth.sastry%2Fpublication%2Fnrswww-2018-b%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552976881&sdata=zPLDuYcYvR8I0owd0sBHajkJzV5BbEf3FGLheDbQYmY%3D&reserved=0> > > o This provided inputs for a major expose by > Buzzfeed News: > https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/inside-the-partisan-fight-for-your-news-feed > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeednews.com%2Farticle%2Fcraigsilverman%2Finside-the-partisan-fight-for-your-news-feed&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552976881&sdata=847ZzN7VJ7YsOslLMhPtsBpEQ1dsvF%2FMfbdzYL1dIgg%3D&reserved=0> > > * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/nrswww-2020/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnms.kcl.ac.uk%2Fnishanth.sastry%2Fpublication%2Fnrswww-2020%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552986876&sdata=BohKs4wt0FYakmdW%2FRbHpeHiV8IQKSj7snT2suWHSg0%3D&reserved=0> > > > o Showing that right leaning sites track more > intensely than left leaning sites (Covered by > WIRED: > https://www.wired.com/story/right-left-news-site-ad-tracking/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%2Fright-left-news-site-ad-tracking%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552986876&sdata=eP2z7v3zr6ru72fzm%2BaMeVONCDvZB5jlD99lanqc06I%3D&reserved=0>) > > > 2. bias in news and social media during political crises > > * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/karamshuk-16-slant/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnms.kcl.ac.uk%2Fnishanth.sastry%2Fpublication%2Fkaramshuk-16-slant%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552996871&sdata=eD5iYLbGgwS7OHwHrQ2BtUnWFVIaO7opyss6n85QmAo%3D&reserved=0> > > 3. And finally, on transferring trust across domains > (which is very aligned with what I see in the > signals draft. We also use age as an “ungameable” > signal to transfer trust across domains. We do > this for IDs of individuals rather than domains, > but the paper develops ways to calibrate trust, > answering questions such as – is a 10 year-old > Facebook ID more trustworthy than a 15 year old > Gmail ID, for example): > > * https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/nishanth.sastry/publication/nr-swww-16/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnms.kcl.ac.uk%2Fnishanth.sastry%2Fpublication%2Fnr-swww-16%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325552996871&sdata=HAnfD7TQCmbGC9HgqvyrEkCSBw69pwUq3VGzn6CoZPQ%3D&reserved=0> > > > Very nice. I'd love to get into signals about > individuals, but we it looked like websites would be a > little simpler, and we wanted to start in the simplest > possible place. Hopefully we can get into such things > fairly soon. > > > * > > I will join the Zoom at 7pm GMT, and can add any > further details that may be interesting to the group. > Looking forward. > > > Great, looking forward to meeting you. This meeting will > be mostly about wrapping up this little sprint, but then > hopefully we can expand a bit for the next phase. > > -- Sandro > > Best wishes > > nishanth > > *From: *Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> > <mailto:sandro@w3.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 15:51 > *To: *Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org> > <mailto:public-credibility@w3.org> > *Subject: *journalism award signals > *Resent from: *<public-credibility@w3.org> > <mailto:public-credibility@w3.org> > *Resent date: *Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 15:51 > > I did a bit more work on the Journalism Awards, > framing it as a general signal and one more specific > signals. > > I put them into the "reviewed signals" draft, marked > as "pending". > > Here's a dated version of that draft: > https://credweb.org/reviewed-signals-20200219/ > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcredweb.org%2Freviewed-signals-20200219%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325553006863&sdata=b6ISIXXSGgwahHR80EFN2JqnQ565SB2l%2BoKdLgm7ZCQ%3D&reserved=0> > (The undated version presumably wont show them as > pending after today, which could confuse someone > reading this later.) > > Meeting in about 3 hours, as usual. Agenda > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1-KcB121I6D6J2ZdQET-qatqCaqv3ttlZkfhgyWEk7nM%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cee3e2a4b45794a1111d508d7b64fa7a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637178325553006863&sdata=aWjKxNNX2JeiifngNIejD%2FS7766euiB1FOcFsqQx0F0%3D&reserved=0>. > > -- Sandro > > > > -- > > Annette Greiner (she) > > NERSC Data and Analytics Services > > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > > -- > Annette Greiner (she) > NERSC Data and Analytics Services > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2020 23:22:16 UTC