CredWeb 2020 Plan

Sandro's draft performance plan for the CredWeb CG for this year is now 
available in StratML format at 
http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#CWCG2020 (It contains mailto links 
that address messages to the CredWeb CG's listserv.)

As the details are fleshed out, I look forward to documenting the 
stakeholder roles and performance indicators ... or anyone else could 
begin to do so by clicking this link 
<http://stratml.us/forms/walt5.pl?url=http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/part2/CWCG2020.xml>, 
which opens the plan in an XForm.  (Note: The form does not write to a 
server.  Edits must be saved locally.)

As I said at the end of the meeting on Tuesday, it seems to me that 
whether content conforms with a schema specified by an international 
voluntary consensus standard is a significant credibility signal that 
could be determined automatically.

Beyond that quick and easy signal, the elements of the schemas 
themselves would enable more sophisticated analysis of the content, 
e.g., whether the author is ID'ed, references are cited, verifiable data 
is provided, etc.

To me, this seems to be a matter of information management maturity, as 
per the CMM. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model#Levels Please 
forgive me if I cannot help thinking about a certain young fellow in 
green <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan>.

Owen

On 1/20/2020 11:30 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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>).