[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> [Tom Passin wrote]
> >There is a whole other aspect, too. Suppose that you decide that Fred's
> >credentials are really in order, to what extent can you believe what he
> >says? A person can be untrustworthy on one or many subjects even though his
> >identity is well-established.
> >
> >
>
> Which is where the logic side starts to come in handy.
>
> Thing is, a lot of this trust stuff already applies to the existing web,
> and it's a problem that won't go away.
>
> Two cases:
>...
> 2. New Scientist ran a story on RSS that was full of factual errors [2].
>
> A failure both in journalistic terms and for the web as an information
> source. Much of the surface material available on the topic is
> inaccurate, mostly a result of selective focussing of certain
> commentators. That there were factual errors in this piece is not
> controversial, however what the truth of some of the matter is depends
> on where you look (e.g. three often contradictory accounts of RSS at [3]).
>
> I can't see how the errors in the second case could have been avoided
> without some kind of trust-related filtering, and that would require
> some kind of distributed logical system that could work with the
> existing web. Again, Semantic Web technologies look the best bet.
Groklaw is a good contemporary example of handling the second example, I think. But in both these cases, it takes time for the word to get out to peers and experts, and for their contributions to filter back. Can Semantic Web technologies help to reduce the time and increase the exposure to that distributed knowledge? I haven't seen discussions along these lines so far, except to say in a generic way that the involves some "web of trust". That's too generic to be useful.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
