Re: Trump vs. Ontology

On 21 November 2016 at 04:30, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 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,
>

For more general ontology topics, I might suggest:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ontolog-forum

"Ontolog is a an open, international, virtual community of practice devoted
to advancing the fields of ontology, ontological engineering, and semantic
technology, and advocating their adoption into mainstream applications and
international standards."

Which some of us are members of and seems to have wide ranging topic
discussions.


>
> 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
>>
>
>