Bob Wyman's Proposed Plan for the CredWeb CGThe content of this StratML rendition is taken from an E-mail message posted on the public listserv of the CredWeb CG by Bob Wyman.Bob WymanBW_1e7ed70a-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea00Reduction in harm caused by misinformation_1e7ed84a-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea00To help users evaluate the credibility of information on the Web_1e7ed93a-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea00InteroperabilityIs it the intent of the W3C to serve only the interests of incumbentproviders who have decided there is a business interest in achievinginteroperability? Is there no room for the voice of the user in specifyingwhat should exist?InnovationDoes the W3C oppose innovation, or the broadened use of its own standards,unless that innovation comes from incumbent providers or is seen by thoseincumbents as serving their business interests?ClarityIf the clarification of standards might encourage new or innovative market entrants, is the W3C opposed to such clarification? (Note: My personal belief is that a more full definition of common methods in this space will enable the creation of many new and innovative services and enterprises.)Public DiscourseIt seems to me that the business interests of many of those incumbents whonow have significant control over public discourse would be diminished byprogress on standardizing the nexus between credibility signals, verifiablecredentials, and annotation.EmpowermentThis is because that particular combination of methods will tend to empower the providers of services other than those currently controlled by the incumbents. For instance, if it were possible to use an in-browser annotation client to make or view annotations and credibility signals that were not hosted by an incumbent, the incumbent's control of the user experience and of the information space would be reduced. Some incumbents would see such a weakening of control as a threat to their business interests. Thus, it seems that some incumbents may be motivated to resist or block efforts to define interoperability efforts inthis area, whether or not the interests of users would be served by suchinteroperability. Will the W3C be a party to or facilitate such blocking ofusers' interests?UtilityThe utility of the existing Credibility Signals document appears to be severely limited since the absence of a means to search for, discover, or challenge such signals means that they are primarily useful for making self-assertions embedded within the resources whose credibility they signal.Self-ServiceClearly, resource providers will only be interested inself-publishing signals which serve their own interests. If I have no standard method for asking a third-party aggregator: "What signals exist for this resource?," of what utility are credibility signals? As defined, the signals seem to be little more than a means for resource providers to puff-up their own credibility. (Is this why none of the existing signals allow one to challenge, rather than support, credibility?)DiscoveryI suggest that the adoption of Credibility Signals would be immensely accelerated if there was a standard mechanism to discover relevant signals. I also suggest that defining the mechanism, even in advance of actual implementations, wouldtend to motivate implementations.Public InterestThe issue of the credibility of statements, primarily made using technicalmeans defined by the W3C (HTML, etc.), has risen to be among the mostprominent issues of our time. It is clear from this that the W3C has failed, in an important way, to serve the interests of society, if not the business interests of incumbent providers. It is time, I think, for the W3C and others to take the initiative in advocating for mechanisms that might reduce the apparent harm that has and is being caused by use of existing standards.StandardizationI am aware that it is often unwise to advance specs to a final or "standard" status until there are, in fact, a useful number of implementations. However, in the many decades I've been in this business, I've also seen that beginning the work of open specification often motivates and inspires implementations. (Sometimes, if you build it, they *will* come...) Thus, an effort will often begin as one which is primarily aspirational, but evolve into one which is focused on back-and-forth between actual implementers.AspirationGiven our very strong need to advance the state of affairs in this area, I think it reasonable to start an aspirational effort now, in the hope that implementations will follow later.ImplementationIf implementations don't follow, then I can see that abandoning the effort might eventually be the right thing to do.EffortNonetheless, as an industry, or community of folk, I think we owe it to our societies to give this a try, whether or not the incumbents participate in the effort.W3C StandardsBroaden usage of W3C standards_1e7edafc-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea00Negative SignalsDefine signals that challenge or deny credibility (i.e. negative signals)_1e7edba6-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea001Third-Party StatementsProvide a means to make third-party statements about existing credibility signals or issuers of such signals (i.e. "Meta-signals (?)" that support, challenge, offer proof, provide context, etc. for existing signals.)_1e7edc3c-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea002DiscoveryProvide a means to discover the existence of credibility signals which exist outside the context of the resources they describe or signals that have been aggregated into a collection (i.e. search)_1e7ede30-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea003CredentialsDefine how credibility signals should be provided as Verifiable Credentials._1e7edf02-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea004AnnotationsDefine how credibility signals should be annotated._1e7edfac-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea005FederationDefine how alternative providers of credibility discovery services (i.e. search and annotation) may federate among themselves._1e7ee04c-21a4-11ec-83c6-71122183ea0062021-08-152021-09-30https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credibility/2021Aug/0019.htmlOwenAmburOwen.Ambur@verizon.net