W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credibility@w3.org > January 2020


From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:23:57 -0500
To: public-credibility@w3.org
Message-ID: <f7b9c1c8-1dcd-6603-4a0c-a5db41b22a90@verizon.net>
In follow-up to today's meeting of the CredWeb CG, NewsGuard's about 
statement is now available in StratML format at 

The nine criteria they use are listed at 

As time permits, I will also render in StratML format the plan that 
Sandro outlined below.


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 <https://credweb.org/report/20181011>". 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 <https://credweb.org/signals-beta/> 
> 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 
> https://data.credweb.org) 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 
> w3.org. 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 
> <https://credweb.org/signals-beta/#newsq-highlight> are good options 
> here, and there are also some that are doable by hand (like these 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ADJX57-xMHIIHrnzEycFrn4fUGQ63SD8hyEHqScYnTY/edit>).
> 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 
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CredWeb&iso=20200121T13&p1=43&ah=1>, 
> https://zoom.us/j/706868147, agenda/record 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zegy2ASbsRtkz8vNVYUXHopZjjXbZweJ5Co8TEW_8w0/edit#>
>      -- Sandro 
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 20:24:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 21 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC