Thad,
Thank you for the information about
schema.org with respect to
ClaimReview<https://schema.org/ClaimReview>ew>.
A point of disagreement with that
schema.org model is the ratings system concept (x out of
N). Instead, for discussion, I prefer a more annotational approach for fact checking with
typed annotations produced and consumed by both humans and software tools. That is, I
prefer the concept of an informational message, warning, error system for fact checking
resembling software IDE’s. Such a model is intuitive, can be readily formalized, made
machine-utilizable, and typed annotations – informational messages, warnings, and errors –
can be merged from multiple sources or service providers.
Best regards,
Adam
P.S.: As interesting, a new W3C Community Group is launching on the topic of document
services. The group intends to discuss and make new architecture and API to facilitate:
spellchecking, grammar checking, proofreading, fact checking, mathematical proof checking,
reasoning checking, argumentation checking, and narrative checking. If the group interests
you, please do feel free to support the creation of the group:
https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#services .
From: Thad Guidry<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:12 PM
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project<mailto:wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; Wikispore
experimental project<mailto:wikispore@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ?
Oops, the better link for the
Schema.org work to support fact checking (some even still in
progress after 3 years) probably should have been this:
http://blog.schema.org/2017/08/schemaorg-33-news-fact-checking.html
Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
https://calendly.com/thadguidry/