Re: CredWeb Plans, meeting tomorrow

Sandro's message has stimulated some interesting dialog on the 
listserv.  I look forward to learning more and understanding better, 
including on the televideo conference tomorrow.

In particular, I want to incorporate the elements of Sandro's "plan" 
below into my StratML rendition of the CG's plan 
<>. Hopefully, doing so may 
help clarify the issues and elevate the productivity of the dialog.

In the meantime, just a reminder that the CG's 2018 report is available 
in StratML format at, 
including a link to a new PDF rendition as well as a link that opens the 
file in an XForm for anyone who may wish to apply it as a performance 
plan.  That's the intent, isn't it ... for folks to use the information 
we're compiling?

I'll also be on the lookout for opportunities to highlight the relevance 
of the Peter Pan Syndrome 
<> to this discourse, as 
highlighted here <>.


On 1/20/2020 11:30 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Hey folks,
> It's a new year, and we've had some quiet weeks.  I'm trying to settle 
> on some next steps for the group. Here's what I'm thinking:
> 1. Let's not try to update the report right now. Let's just convert it 
> to a "final report", to make it properly archival, with a clear note 
> that it was written in 2018. Maybe a short name like "Credibility Tech 
> 2018 <>". If there's sufficient 
> interest in a revision or new reports that are more focused later, 
> that's fine, but I don't think it's the best use of group time right now.
> 2. Instead of Credibility Signals <> 
> trying to include everything about signals while also highlighting the 
> good stuff, let's split it into three different resources:
> * *Credibility APIs*, a technical guide for how computers should talk 
> to other computers to exchange credibility data. Included data 
> formats, protocols, RESTful APIs, browser APIs, etc. Not a spec for 
> any of these, but an overview of options that are specified elsewhere. 
> I'm thinking we can publish a small draft and start to gather input.
> * A *Credibility Data Exchange*, a website for exploring all the 
> signal definitions and signal instance data people are willing to make 
> public, with clear attribution back to the sources and no endorsement 
> from us. I've made a few prototypes over the years (like 
> but none I was happy with, yet. Maybe this 
> should just be my thing, not the group's; that's topic for discussion. 
> (It might help if someone wanted to fund this.)
> * *Endorsed Credibility Signals*.  This would be a relatively small 
> document, describing 5-20 signals where we have consensus within the 
> group that they are pretty good. I'd expect it to change over time 
> with new data. The RDF schema for these signals would be published on 
> It would intentionally be kept small enough to be manageable, 
> unlike the Exchange as past "Signals" drafts. I think some of the 
> NewsQ highlight signals 
> <> are good options 
> here, and there are also some that are doable by hand (like these 
> <>).
> So, agenda for tomorrow is to talk about this plan, and if there's 
> time, talk about the actual signals we might be ready to endorse.
> If you can't make it to the meeting and have thoughts on all this, 
> email could be helpful.
> Meeting, as usual: 21 January 2020 1pm ET 
> <>, 
>, agenda/record 
> <>
>      -- Sandro 

Received on Monday, 20 January 2020 22:53:38 UTC