W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Trump vs. Ontology

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:30:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7WvDO9x72Vhg-iUwO57npaHGDjRguatQdftuxLpbS4qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Folks,

As I said last week
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2016Nov/0017.html>,
this is the wrong forum for a Trump-specific discussion. Please take it
elsewhere or stick to the general issues and a differently-titled email
thread. As Community Group chair, I have to be serious about this. Thanks
in advance for your understanding,

Dan


On 20 November 2016 at 18:16, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> Honesty and accountability are the first two of three key values expressed
> in President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan and the third one is change:
> http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/TAP100wStyle.xml#values_
>
>
>
> Implicit in the latter value is the mistrust many people now have not only
> for politicians and political parties but also the news media as well as
> government itself.  Depending upon one’s confirmation bias
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias>, anyone’s “story” may
> be as good as anyone else’s.  Indeed, consensus among the so-called
> “mainstream” news media is taken by many simply to be evidence of the
> self-righteous bias of reporters, editors, and publishers.
>
>
>
> In any event, it would be great if this group could help specify what
> Trump’s first two avowed values mean in terms of data and metadata, bearing
> in mind that more of the same is unlikely to be effective – unless the
> objective is to accentuate polarization, in which case social media have
> proven to be quite adept at turbocharging groupthink.
>
>
>
> To the degree any members of this group may choose to take on this
> challenge, it would be good to learn from others and avoid reinventing the
> wheel.  See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Machine-Readable_Documents
>
>
>
> BTW, according to this site, the ranked choice voting initiative was
> approved in the State of Maine:  https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_
> Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_(2016)
>
>
>
> From my perspective, polarization appears an inevitable result of feeling
> that others have been empowered to impose too much upon us with which we
> disagree.  While it may be marginally better if candidates with the highest
> negatives were not inevitably nominated by minorities within their
> respective political parties, that does relatively little to address the
> underlying issue – which is the growth of government.  Indeed, depending
> upon one’s bias, the key issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign might be
> distilled as a choice between growing the economy versus growing the
> government.
>
>
>
> Just some thoughts … for whatever they might be worth.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2016 4:14 PM
> *To:* Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Trump vs. Ontology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12 November 2016 at 06:54, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Interesting question.
>
>
>
> Has anyone considered the values trump stands for in association to the
> available structured data offered by Schemaorg?  My point being about the
> role of structured data in decision making practices.
>
>
>
> Where schema / data isn't available, perhaps it blindsides whatever is
> being used to evaluate community sentiment...?
>
>
>
> Perhaps also, those using the works don't understand how they work...
>
>
>
> I think the recent "fake news" controversy provides a use case to annotate
> documents, by various trusted individuals (or perhaps those in your social
> circle) in order fact check, provide commentary, help reach decisions.
>
> Im not sure how good a fit schema.org is for this use case, tho certainly
> some terms could be reused.
>
> If I remember correctly, it was one of the original goals of the web to
> allow annotations, and collaborative editing.  Perhaps the web annotations
> WG is the best place for this kind of thing.
>
> What I envision in future versions of the web is a browser addon that
> allows you to read articles, but also where you notice corrections made by
> your friends or people you trust, or items questioned, marked, liked etc.
> Similarly for video.
>
>
>
> Kingsley wrote a great piece on this, and appears to have built some
> really great tooling using, among other things, schema.org
>
> https://medium.com/@kidehen/reporting-fake-new-doesnt-
> need-to-be-centralized-or-placed-in-the-hands-of-a-
> single-entity-5d89bd6f3779#.72ka6yc4p
>
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 03:30:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 21 November 2016 03:30:58 UTC