W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Solomon''s curse and search Bias

From: Joe Duarte <songofapollo@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 09:56:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAESemU_Wsrs7-P3oNRy7Rqe3Jr=hLHiXyMXS0STBfNN2o9Tajg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
For what it's worth, certain facilities in schema.org would have made this
search easier. Mainly I'm thinking of the *sameAs* property. The content I
found that touched on a Solomon's Curse or the Curse of Jeconiah (the
latter came up in searches of the former) weren't using this property, or
in some cases weren't using schema.org at all. A sameAs value of the
Wikipedia page for King Solomon would have been ideal.

It would also be handy to have an equivalent feature on the search side, to
say in a search that we're looking for info on this particular figure, not
novels with similar strings in their titles. In fact, another useful search
feature would be to *eliminate the most popular result/entity*, and even
the second or third most popular entities. There are lots of searches that
are dominated by one or two entities, where we might want to skip them to
get at what we're looking for. For example, searches for Joe Duarte are
dominated by Joe "The Hybrid" Duarte, a retired MMA fighter. You'd have an
easier time finding me if you could tell Google and other engines to skip
the most popular entity. This of course requires that the search engine
understand entities and be able to know that a bunch of different results
pertain to the same entity.


On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:38 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>

> Zach and all
> sorry - initially I cross posted because the google search result question
> (how come despite all this knowledge we still struggle with some basic
> search result)
> has implication to more than one forum.
> The broad answers that ensued may be off topic the more specifics of each
> list
> I apologise, my bad,  I request people who want to reply just to post to
> the forum
>  post they are replying to in relation to the scope of the forum they are
> posting to
> P
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:46 PM Zachary Whitley <zachary.whitley@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Why is this being cross posted?
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:08 AM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
>> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I keep hearing the song by Harry Belafonte in my head and the words
>>> "there is a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza".
>>> We have come full circle back to square one.
>>> Knowledge representation for computational purposes represents
>>> everything we can through the use of symbols and semiotics
>>> record and create algorithms for to utilize in a computational framework.
>>> Knowledge itself however covers so many more domains of discourse that
>>> we rapidly loose ourselves.
>>> There are linguistic, cognitive, consciousness, philosophical etc angles
>>> to the issue as well as scientific, and of course for our purposes the
>>> mathematical, logical and computational angles.
>>> Let us stick to the latter three but not loose sight of all the others.
>>> Milton Ponson
>>> GSM: +297 747 8280
>>> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
>>> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
>>> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
>>> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
>>> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:49 PM, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> From my perspective, this issue boils down to:
>>>     1. How well tools help us achieve our objectives;
>>>     2. How well our objectives support our deeply held personal values;
>>> and
>>>     3. Whether we are comfortable turning over to advertisers,
>>> marketers, and search engines the determination of our personal values, in
>>> which case it seems to me that human life may be pretty meaningless.
>>> Thus, it seems to me that might be the last function we might want to
>>> consider turning over to AI.
>>> Instead, it seems like we should hold AI tools strictly accountable to
>>> reporting their intentions and results in terms that are not only human
>>> readable but also readily subject to evaluation against human values.
>>> It also seems to me that we can help AI agents help us by documenting
>>> our values and intentions (goals and objectives) in a format that is both
>>> human- and machine-readable, like StratML Part 2, Performance Plans and
>>> Reports.
>>> To the degree my thoughts may reflect my ignorance on these matters, I
>>> look forward to learning the error of my logic.  I hope overcome the
>>> natural human tendency to embrace artificial ignorance.  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/artificial-ignorance-owen-ambur/
>>> Owen
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:48 AM
>>> To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com; SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
>>> Cc: schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>;
>>> public-aikr@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Solomon''s curse and search Bias
>>> On 3/5/2019 1:01 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>> >
>>> > what I am trying to say, I guess, is that to understand the world and
>>> > resolve the meaning of life we need to reconcile the vastly fragmented
>>> > data and information to yield a reasonably comprehensive search
>>> > result,  even when ordering the sandwich
>>> I don't think that this is how our brains are constructed.  And I don't
>>> want to unify the universe of knowledge before ordering a sandwich for
>>> lunch.  Instead, I want to do it in a way that is easy, low energy, and is
>>> compatible with my needs and moods of the moment.  Maybe I want comfort
>>> food, maybe I want a gourmet experience, maybe I want to impress a date,
>>> and so on.
>>> So I want my brain to be able to take shortcuts that reliably serve my
>>> (mostly unconscious) intentions.  That's a long way from consolidating the
>>> universe and the meaning of life to order a sandwich.
>>> I think that, if there is one aspect of all this that tops the others,
>>> it would be the brain's ability to associate information, memories, ideas,
>>> concepts, etc., extremely quickly so as to bring a focused subset of its
>>> information to bear on a situation.  We hardly even know how all those
>>> different kinds on things (information, memories, etc.) could be encoded
>>> and retrieved in similar ways, let alone how to retrieve mainly the most
>>> relevant of them.
>>> Solve the above, and your search engines will become much closer to what
>>> you want (and what we all of us want as well).
>>> TomP
Received on Saturday, 9 March 2019 17:57:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:45 UTC