[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hey.
When filtering articles you want to be able to say "show me only articles
that have been tagged as accurate by people I trust"
Establishing the reliability of the source is the first part of the
picture.
FOAF has extensions to model "trust" among a network of associates. Tying
FOAF information into feeds could allow your agent to trace and apply
customized trust rules to the author of an article.
FOAF authorship tagging
http://usefulinc.com/foaf/iMadeThis
FOAF trust extension:
http://www.perceive.net/schemas/20021119/trust/
Here's another project modelling trust for the semantic web:
http://trust.mindswap.org/
The second part of the picture is making assertions about accuracy, which
seems like a domain RDF might apply to. Annotea is an RDF format for
making assertions about things, and the project has solutions to some of
the issues with centralizing annotations, and how to submit to and query
from the centralized annotation stores.
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/
Topic maps might also be used to model accuracy statements.
> Michael Gorman, President of the American Library Association, recently
> wrote a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece about digitizing books for Google:
>
> "Hailed as the ultimate example of information retrieval, Google is, in
> fact, the device that gives you thousands of "hits" (which may or may
> not be relevant) in no very useful order.
To say that the google algorithms don't add value to the information it
indexes seems poorly informed. It is important to understand exactly what
that value is, and to acknowledge the feedback loop (i.e. the extent to
which all authoring on the web now optimizes for google's indexing
algorithms).
> In a followup piece, he also commented about the quality and
> accuracy of blogs:
> "A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which
> the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can
> communicate their thoughts via the web."
I'm just going to skip over this terrified sounding elitist and grossly
oversimplifying generalization. OK not completely...
> Attention.XML, del.icio.us, XFN, and menow are interesting, but "who's
> reading what" isn't really a measure of accuracy and quality.
Not in any deterministic way. It is stll meaningful information.
> Media organizations, although imperfect, have staff people to do fact
> checking. Academic papers are often peer reviewed.
> We know there's a difference in the credibility of those sources versus
> blogs and fringe web sites.
And to assume too much about that accuracy is dangerous.
> So we need a solution for filtering out the junk.
Finally a statement I can agree with!!
> "Was this article useful?" appears on many web articles.
This is an example of making it easy to add "usefulness" meta data. At
the time of reading may be the wrong time to collect accuracy data though.
And it doesn't address trust at all.
At amazon you can review a book, you can review a review, and you can
review a reviewer. This may well be the cutting edge of an organically
grown trust network. I just wish Amazon could give us some better query
tools into that information.
------------>Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
--
.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.
Nathan Young
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@cisco.com
|
