Thad,
Thank you for the information about schema.org with respect to ClaimReview.
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
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:12 PM
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project
Cc: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org;
Wikispore experimental project
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