Re: Fact-checking and Argumentation

I agree about points 1 to 10.

On the topics of 2, some initial thoughts include typed fine-grained links or typed quotes, where schemas, like ClaimReview, can refer to documents and to quotes of, rephrases of, or summaries of documents’ contents.

Starting with some simple examples, agreeing or disagreeing with specific content from creative works, we could phrase agreeing and disagreeing as types of quoting from creative works. Extending typed quoting to justified typed quoting, the schemas for agreeing or disagreeing could contain structure for content explaining agreement or disagreement with quoted, rephrased or summarized content.

In the example schemas, offered for purposes of discussion, the quoted contents are text, they could be direct quotes, rephrases or summaries, and also text are rationales or justifications for agreement or disagreement with the quoted, rephrased or summarized content. There are a few more relationships between portions of creative works to consider as well.


Quote
AgreeQuote
DisagreeQuote


Best regards,
Adam

[1] Bex, Floris, John Lawrence, Mark Snaith, and Chris Reed. "Implementing the argument web." Communications of the ACM 56, no. 10 (2013): 66-73.

[2] Bex, Floris, Mark Snaith, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. "Argublogging: An application for the argument web." Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 25 (2014): 9-15.

From: Melvin Carvalho<mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent: ıSaturdayı, ıJanuaryı ı7ı, ı2017 ı12ı:ı47ı ıAM
To: Adam Sobieski<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org<mailto:public-schemaorg@w3.org>, public-argumentation@w3.org<mailto:public-argumentation@w3.org>

On 7 January 2017 at 03:47, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Schema.org Community Group,
Argumentation Community Group,

Here is an article from the Collaborative Software Community Group, E-Participation, Decision Support Systems, Multi-document Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Bias Mitigation (https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/2015/12/09/e-participation-decision-support-systems-multi-document-natural-language-processing-and-cognitive-bias-mitigation/), which indicates the interrelated topics:

1. Performing fact-checking

2. Performing argument analysis

3. Detecting spin and persuasion

4. Performing sentiment analysis

5. Detecting frame building and frame setting

6. Detecting agenda building and agenda setting

7. Detecting various sociolinguistic, social semiotic, sociocultural and memetic events

8. Detecting the dynamics of the attention of individuals, groups and the public

9. Detecting framing effects and other cognitive biases resulting from simultaneous or proximate, parallel and sequential, discussions of topics and subtopics

10. Presenting the detected real-time information to individuals and groups, supporting situation awareness and sensemaking

Very interesting.  I think trying to find solutions to these problems would be quite valuable.

In terms of schema.org<http://schema.org>, which terms do you think we can we put in the data to help facilitate solving problems 1-10?



Recommended models and technologies of use toward argumentation schemas include:

1. AIF (http://www.argumentinterchange.org/)

2. ArgDF (http://www.argdf.org/)


Best regards,
Adam Sobieski
http://www.phoster.com/contents/
https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/
https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/

From: Adam Sobieski<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Sent: ıFridayı, ıJanuaryı ı6ı, ı2017 ı2ı:ı49ı ıAM
To: public-schemaorg@w3.org<mailto:public-schemaorg@w3.org>, public-argumentation@w3.org<mailto:public-argumentation@w3.org>

Schema.org Community Group,
Argumentation Community Group,

I would like to applaud the ClaimReview proposal (http://pending.schema.org/ClaimReview), discussed here, in this mailing list, and also at: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1061 .

I opine that the discussion is one toward an Argumentation Web insofar as it discusses claims. Claims are presently text (http://pending.schema.org/claimReviewed) but could be, at some point, text or Claim (referenced by URI). Fact-checking does not require the fact-checked documents’ authors to utilize a specific technology, technique or schema; fact-checked authors do not have to indicate or annotate the claims in their documents.

Argumentation mining tasks include, but are not limited to, finding the claims in natural language documents (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:7hn0XfveJs0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en); forthcoming corpora of fact-checking and fact-checked documents and other derived corpora will be of use for the automatic detection of claims in natural language documents and of use for other argumentation mining research.

Which factors contribute to the discussion, adoption and utilization of schemas? Some of those factors are emergent features, those of search engines, of major websites and of software.

“Google News determines whether an article might contain fact checks in part by looking for the schema.org<http://schema.org> ClaimReview markup. We also look for sites that follow the commonly accepted criteria for fact checks. Publishers who create fact-checks and would like to see it appear with the ‘Fact check’ tag should use that markup in fact-check articles.” (https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-google-news/)

>From fact-checking to argumentation, we can consider how the automatic detection of claims might impact the indexing, search and retrieval of documents in distributed, decentralized, discussion forums. We can consider how the detection of argumentation might as well. We can consider new search engine, major website and productivity and collaboration software features which would result from argumentation schema.


Best regards,
Adam Sobieski
http://www.phoster.com/contents/
https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/
https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:01:35 UTC