- From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
- Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 14:17:33 -0400
- To: Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA1s49Wcwp4qxwuoT3UcXzNXM5o3Pc71cxPWjnOugXrAtocfYQ@mail.gmail.com>
I forgot to mention: I also expect my browser to allow me to create an "annotation," with or without embedded credibility signals, for any addressable resource that can be displayed in my browser -- including other annotations or credibility signals. Additionally, it should be possible for me to publish such annotations in such a way that they are discoverable by others (although I might limit the scope of those who can discover it.) This ability to support an interface allowing me to "say things about" addressable web resources is, I believe, most clearly dealt with in the realm of discussions similar to those that motivated development of the W3C Web Annotations specification. bob wyman On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:06 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote: > While I argue that an extended variant of W3C Web Annotations is the > appropriate way to support the publication and discovery of 2nd and 3rd > party credibility signals (i.e. not 1st party signals embedded in the > content itself), I recognize that just about any mechanism for stating a > relationship between a web resource and some other retrievable resource > containing a credibility signal would satisfy the technical requirement. > This means, of course, that anything that supports RDF or an RDF-like > mechanism would do the job. In fact, it is useful to observe that the > ability to assess credibility would be enhanced if there is access not only > to explicit credibility signals but also to the full range of data and > relationships that are recorded in the Semantic Web. But, while the claim > "All you need is RDF!" has a great deal of truth to it, I feel that claim > is insufficient in that it addresses only one aspect of the problem set; > data storage conventions. "Just use RDF," tells us something about how to > store the relationship data, but it says nothing about the expected use > cases, interfaces, dialog patterns, etc. whose understanding is essential > to the development of a useful communication paradigm. (Credibility signals > are communications...) "Just use RDF," does little to allow us to build up > a common, shared understanding of how these systems might "look." On the > other hand, speaking about W3C Web Annotations invokes a particular set of > assumptions, understandings, etc. of one very useful means of establishing > relationships between resources. > > When I pull up a web page in my browser (say: " > https://example.com/post1.html") I would like my browser to present to > me, in parallel with the page, a filtered/sorted list of annotations > relevant to that page. Determinations of relevance should be based on the > current state of my personal "Credibility Web" (see Sandro's earlier posts > re Credibility Web). If there are no annotations in the curated set, or if > I am curious to see what is not in the curated list, I should also be able > to request either a full set of annotations, or a set filtered and sorted > using something other than my default Credibility Web. Ideally, the browser > would also be able to pull in and display, in some useful format, data > concerning the page, its hosting site, author, etc. that is retrieved from > the Semantic Web. Clearly, it would be useful if processes in my browser, > or that work in cooperation with my browser, could evalature the same set > of annotations or Semantic Web data and generate various summaries, > "scores," etc. that could be presented to me in order to enrich my ability > to assess the credibility or truth of claims made on the current page. > > Given that W3C Web Annotations are "just RDF or RDF-like stuff," I could > say "Just use RDF," but I think it is more useful to view this from the > users point of view, to see it as an application of the annotation use > case, and leave the use of, or necessity for, RDF as a technical > implementation detail. > > bob wyman > > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 1:15 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote: > >> The message exchange reconstructed below occurred on the internal list, >> but it has been observed that it belonged on the public list instead. I >> hope the other contributors to this thread do not object to my repackaging >> and reposting it on the public list. >> >> ----- Forwarded Messages follow ----- >> >> From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> >> Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 12:14 AM >> Subject: A Suggestion for Bob >> To: <internal-credibility@w3.org> >> >> Sandro, thank for sharing these audio/video recordings. >> >> Since Bob Wyman is troubled by the lack of capability to express to the >> world that he is not a communist, the purpose of this message is to offer >> him a potential means of relief: >> >> Publish his plan(s) on the Web in StratML Part 1, Strategic Plan (ISO >> 17469-1) format. >> >> If he were to do so, it would be fairly easy for myriad AI-enabled >> intermediary services to pretty well establish whether he is a communist or >> not, assuming of course that he honestly documents his vision, mission, >> values, goals, objectives, and stakeholders -- as best he understands them. >> >> With reference to Leonard Rosenthol's comment about verification, that >> depends upon whether performance indicators of actual results are reliably >> documented and shared -- preferably in records published in an open, >> standard, machine-readable format like StratML Part 2, Performance Plans & >> Reports (formerly ANSI/AIIM 22:2017). >> >> Lacking such indicators anyone's guesses and "assertions" are as good as >> anyone else's. Even if Bob does openly represent himself as a >> card-carrying communist, that alone doesn't truly make him one For >> example, he could be working as an undercover agent for the FBI ... or a >> spy for fascists ... or a college professor with tenure in an ivory tower >> insulated from reality. Or perhaps he may *mistakenly* believe that he >> is a communist. >> >> What matters is the degree to which he actually participates in >> commandeering other people's property, discouraging personal initiative, >> denying personal responsibility, destroying economic incentives, and making >> everyone poorer, i.e., what real communists do. >> >> With respect to your concluding comment, I look forward to learning >> whether we can do more together than merely "attend a few meetings and >> exchange E-mail messages". Perhaps I'll have a better sense of that when >> I've had a chance to listen to recording of the meet-the-candidates >> meeting. If so, I'll "scribe" my understanding the the group's plan in >> StratML format. >> >> Owen >> --------------------------------- >> From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> >> Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 1:33 AM >> Subject: Re: A Suggestion for Bob >> To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> >> Cc: <internal-credibility@w3.org> >> >> >> Owen, >> It would be nice if your "myriad AI-enabled intermediaries" could support >> Bob's denial of Alice's claim. However, one must wonder if the output of >> those intermediaries would actually be useful. The problem is that unless >> Alice is willing to allow claims of the intermediaries to be posted >> alongside her own claim, very few, if any, of the people who read Alice's >> claim will see any claims, rebuttals, or proofs that challenge Alice's >> credibility. I think this is a major problem with what appears to be the >> current thinking about these credibility signals. For credibility signals >> to be more than just a means for authors and their hosts to publish >> self-serving claims that support, but do not challenge, their own >> credibility, we need to describe how credibility signals, both positive and >> negative, can be associated with authors, statements, etc. without the >> consent of their subjects and potentially even without their knowledge >> (although such signals need not be hidden). This is why I've pointed to >> annotation protocols on several occasions. Credibility signals, published >> as Web Annotations, would have the needed characteristics. >> >> Of course, the existing W3C Web Annotation protocol is incomplete, for >> the desired purpose, since it doesn't define the "search" function needed >> to discover annotations that are related to a specific URL. Personally, I >> think it would make sense for this group to define Credibility Signals as >> annotations and to define the additional protocol needed to allow discovery >> of such annotations. If we were to do this, then your "myriad AI-enabled >> intermediaries" would be able to publish their assessment of Alice's claim >> in a manner that is more likely to be discovered by readers of Alice's >> claim -- if only people were to use annotation clients... Your AI-bots >> might even be enhanced to search out other posts with similar claims and >> annotate them as well. >> >> bob wyman >> >> --------------------------------- >> From: Georg Rehm <georg.rehm@dfki.de> >> Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:07 AM >> Subject: Re: A Suggestion for Bob >> To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> >> Cc: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, <internal-credibility@w3.org> >> >> Dear Bob, >> >> On 5. Sep 2021, at 07:33, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote: >> >> Owen, >> […] >> >> Of course, the existing W3C Web Annotation protocol is incomplete, for >> the desired purpose, since it doesn't define the "search" function needed >> to discover annotations that are related to a specific URL. Personally, I >> think it would make sense for this group to define Credibility Signals as >> annotations and to define the additional protocol needed to allow discovery >> of such annotations. If we were to do this, then your "myriad AI-enabled >> intermediaries" would be able to publish their assessment of Alice's claim >> in a manner that is more likely to be discovered by readers of Alice's >> claim -- if only people were to use annotation clients... Your AI-bots >> might even be enhanced to search out other posts with similar claims and >> annotate them as well. >> >> >> just as a follow-up to what you sketched in your email, this is an idea >> that I described in the following paper a number of years ago: >> >> Georg Rehm. “An Infrastructure for Empowering Internet Users to handle >> Fake News and other Online Media Phenomena”. In Georg Rehm and Thierry >> Declerck, editors, *Language Technologies for the Challenges of the >> Digital Age: 27th International Conference, GSCL 2017, Berlin, Germany, >> September 13-14, 2017*, Proceedings, number 10713 in Lecture Notes in >> Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), pages 216-231, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. >> Gesellschaft für Sprachtechnologie und Computerlinguistik e.V., Springer. >> 13/14 September 2017. >> >> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-73706-5_19.pdf >> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-73706-5_19.pdf> >> >> The article proposes an infrastructure to address phenomena of modern >> online media production, circulation and manipula- tion by establishing a >> distributed architecture for automatic processing and human feedback. The >> main building blocks of the proposed infrastructure are: natively embedded >> into the World Wide Web, Web Annotations, Metadata Standards, Tools and >> Services, Decentralised Repositories and Tools, Aggregation of Annotations. >> >> Best regards, >> Georg >> >> --------------------------------- >> From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> >> Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:55 AM >> Subject: Re: A Suggestion for Bob >> To: Georg Rehm <georg.rehm@dfki.de> >> Cc: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, <internal-credibility@w3.org> >> >> Georg, >> Nice paper. I think you and I have a common vision of the solution space >> that needs to be explored. The question, of course, is whether or not the >> Credibility group is the correct context for these discussions. I am hoping >> that it is as I am unaware of other good candidates. >> >> Given the importance of having annotations supported in the browser, we >> might be encouraged by the fact that there is an existing effort to get >> Chrome and Chromium to provide support for annotations. (See: >> https://github.com/bokand/web-annotations ) However, I am concerned that >> if that effort moves ahead without substantive input on what must be done >> to ensure that annotations are useful for credibility signalling, it is >> entirely possible that we may find broad deployment of an annotation >> interface that makes it difficult to add in the later support at a later >> time. Also, there is some risk that a browser built-in annotation system >> might make assumptions about the storage of annotations that make it >> difficult to provide them via a federated system. We may get locked into >> monolithic annotation systems which would not address the needs we both >> appear to recognize. >> >> bob wyman >> (Resident of Zehlendorf and Dahlem during the 1960's... Berlin bleibt >> doch frei!) >> >> --------------------------------- >> From: Georg Rehm <georg.rehm@dfki.de> >> Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 4:36 AM >> Subject: Re: A Suggestion for Bob >> To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> >> Cc: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, <internal-credibility@w3.org> >> >> Bob, >> >> yes, the idea and vision I described in the paper relies on the massive >> adoption of web annotations (and their full implementation and availability >> in all browsers), on decentralised annotation repositories, on a >> decentralised set and toolbox of text mining and natural language >> processing tools that operate on the decentralised annotations and on >> shared vocabularies, i.e., annotation formats. >> >> Georg >> >> P.S. I live in Prenzlauer Berg, close to Mitte. Not immediately >> accessible to residents of Zehlendorf or Dahlem in the 1960s. >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Sunday, 5 September 2021 18:17:59 UTC