W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Does WaPo Fact Checker get the semantics of schema.org's ClaimReview wrong?

From: Michael Andrews <nextcontent01@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:03:36 +0530
Message-ID: <CAF9ZrJ1BRu+31fkKmVYiyPWJUWgPTjQaXFEkVWwCO4D_TcnqHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Finin <finin@umbc.edu>
Cc: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
I see a usability issue with how Rating http://schema.org/Rating is applied
to ClaimReview.  On one hand, publishers should invert their scales when
their own numeric systems indicate the worst rating as having the highest
numeric value, IF the goal is for the value to be evaluated by an
algorithm, say by a search engine, to assess the claim.  In this case, the
value is considered a number (integer) value, so that all numbers need to
be consistent for an algorithm to compare them.  On the other hand, the
publisher has their own rating system that may involve numeric values that
are understood by audiences in a certain way (more Pinocchios are worse,
not better).  If the rating value were inverted, but displayed to audiences
in a snippet, then people would draw an incorrect conclusion about what the
rating represented.  In this case, the rating value is actually a text
value, not a number value.

Another point of confusion comes from the definitions of bestRating as the
"highest value" implying it will be high number.  Not all rating systems
work that way.  It would be better to keep the original values the
publishers use, but clarify the scale by saying bestRating as "most
favorable" rather than highest.  Ultimately, I think there needs to be two
separate rating values, a text value that is seen by audiences, and a
numeric value that machine readable.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Tim Finin <finin@umbc.edu> wrote:

> I just checked a few recent politifact items and they do indeed have the
> scale inverted.  :-(
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't re-checked since I tweeted this on 11 April, but at that time
>> PolitiFact seemed also was using a scale that was the inverse of the
>> schema's specs:
>> https://twitter.com/aaranged/status/851902710307737600
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 04:34:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:35 UTC