- From: Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 18:07:03 +0100
- To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Cc: CredWeb CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALpEXW1n2=BjovMK0NcaQDxm7w68F9RhGH=7rQfNNDxFjhY5LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello, In regards to W3C web annotations, there is an apache incubating project that looks at assimilating annotator, hypothes.is, and others -> https://annotator.apache.org/ <https://annotator.apache.org/> One could use W3C annotation + schema.org (add schema.org embedded annotations). There is a paper on fake news that suggested the use of W3C web annotations -> https://aclanthology.org/L18-1384.pdf Thanks, Adeel On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 17:56, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote: > Bob, if this group does decide to define Credibility Signals and/or a > "protocol" for discovery of such signals, I'll look forward to rendering > the plan in StratML format. > > In the meantime, since StratML files are plain XML text, any of the search > engines can make the performance indicators they contain readily > discoverable. > > Moreover, to the degree that anyone believes anyone else's reported > performance indicators are misleading (and care enough to do something > about it), they can use the stratml:Relationship elements > <https://stratml.us/references/oxygen/PerformancePlanOrReport20160216_xsd.htm#Relationship> > to link their counter-claims to those they believe are incorrect, simply by > citing the GUID associated with the indicator. > > Bing does a better job of indexing StratML GUIDs than Google. > https://stratml.us/cusson/BingStratMLGUIDQueries.htm > > My sense is that Google is protecting its turf, which relies upon the > immaturity of information published by others. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document > > To the degree that may be true, it represents a business opportunity for > more enlightened and public spirited social entrepreneurs. > > I doubt public policymakers are astute enough to raise that issue in > deliberations of the monopolistic practices of the tech giants. However, > from my perspective, the W3C's abandonment of its XML Recommendation is > evidence not only of such practices but also artificial ignorance as well > as valuing style over substance. > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/artificial-ignorance-owen-ambur/ | > https://stratml.us/references/FlashyVIntelligentWeb.pdf > > I don't want to grant The Politic Industry even more power than it already > has. To the contrary, I'd like to divest power away from most, if not all > authoritarian, centralized dictators. On the other hand, I am all for > creative destruction in the marketplace and hope that We the People will > not allow the existing powers-that-be to stand in the way simply because > the interest of big government and big tech coincide on many issues. > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/politics-industry-v-we-people-magic-formula-owen-ambur/ > > BTW, lest there be any doubt, I strongly agree with Michael Schrage's > assertions > <https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6843901423038672896?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A6843901423038672896%2C6843930526210904064%29> > about the nature of collaboration. > Owen > https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/ > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: A Suggestion for Bob > Resent-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2021 05:34:21 +0000 > Resent-From: internal-credibility@w3.org > Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 01:33:54 -0400 > From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> <bob@wyman.us> > To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> <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 > > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 12:14 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> [deleted] >> >
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2021 17:08:28 UTC