Detecting Conflict-Of-Interest on the Semantic Web 34
CexpTretical writes "At the 15th International WWW Conference in Edinburgh Scotland, Refereed Track on Semantic Web accepted many thorough and interesting academic papers on semantic web research on subjects related to where the Web is in the Semantic Web?
One such paper nominated for Best Paper Award, Semantic Analytics on Social Networks: Experiences in Addressing the Problem of Conflict of Interest Detection hits on the whole subject of validation and/or verification in the brave world of so called "Web 3.0" topologies/frameworks/architectures.
The paper describes a "Semantic Web application that detects Conflict of Interest (COI) relationships"."
Web 3.0" topologies/frameworks/architectures (Score:3, Funny)
He Said, She Said... (Score:2)
Things that make me feel that I'm mad
And you're making me feel like I've never been born
She said you don't understand what I said
I said no, no, no you're wrong
When I was a boy, everything was right
Everything was right
I said even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cause you're making me feel like I've never been born
Re:He Said, She Said... (Score:4, Funny)
Conflict of interest? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to see this applied to politicians and (Score:2, Interesting)
That would make for an interesting web application and an interesting election year...
It's all semantics (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This web thing sounds like the perfect way to catch a lot of nasty bugs.
Re: (Score:1)
Except the syntatic sugar
"No-fly-list" for Conflict of Interest (Score:5, Informative)
The goal of full/complete automation is some years away. Currently, quality and availability of data is often a key challenge given the limited number of high quality and useful data sources. Significant work is required in certain tasks, such as entity disambiguation.
As a practical tool the Semantic Web has all of the problems that no-fly lists have. People share names with each other and one individual may appear under multiple names. Datasets are radically incomplete, and an awareness of the possible uses to which data may be put will encourage the less scrupulous amongst us to deliberatly devalue datasets by including misleading or incomplete information.
Even without deliberate poisoning of the data, it is doubtful that standard vocabularies will be used in sufficiently consistent ways by various institutions and individuals to create homogenous (and therefore useful) datasets. For example, people who do multi-centre cancer trials expend an enormous amount of energy on data curation and auditing, which includes actual site visits to institutions and periodic audits of data, as well as centralized control of what gets into the final database. And this is for data collected by cancer centers and cancer docs who are nominally committed to following precise protocols and have been given training in what the fields in the various forms are supposed to mean. Yet centres can and do get delisted from studies due to lack of compliance.
The same thing can be seen in nominally standardized data formats like MAGE-ML and its cousins: industry-standard XML-based languages for marking up genomic datasets. There are specific elements that are intended for particular pieces of data, but a depressing amount of the time companies decide to put the really important stuff in a catch-all element, because "it's easier" than understanding the well-documented and clearly defined format.
Likewise, medical images created in DICOM format by major equipment manufacturers not infrequently have clear and blatant violations of the DICOM standard, despite over a decade of effort to ensure a reasonable level of compliance. And these are not subtle violations, but missing required fields, or incorrect data in required fields ("because all our images are 512x512 why should we have to fill in the width and height all the time? It's easier to just leave them zero.")
People are stupid and lazy. I know I am. And we use the same words to mean different things, and different words to mean the same thing. The Semantic Web requires people to be smart and hardworking, and to use standardized vocabularies in standardized ways. Decades of failed or at best partially successful data exchange protocols strongly suggest that these requirements will not be fulfilled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
wikipedia standardized vocabulary and semantic web (Score:3, Informative)
A quite standardized vocabulary actually exist in Wikipedia (markup language, templates, categories).
Here is a list o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow... (Score:2)
This is old news in academia, and yet things still work pretty darn well there. That is because reputation is important, and as soon as you do something unethical or even just stupid, you're toast.
If a field gets too "imbred" as far as their research/reviewing goes (e.g. a group always present at workshops at 3rd rate conferences, and th
Conflict of Interest or "common interest"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
UH OK (Score:2)
I vote that next year the Best Paper Award go to "Looseleaf Paper" because it has both holes AND lines.
Meh. (Score:2)
That said, the researchers picked the domain very carefully - to guarantee a positive-looking result, I guess - but I don't see how this could scale to the web in general, a place where, well, nobody knows you're a dog.
Yes, slightly offtopic.... (Score:1)
Being just curious enough to add a .com after that, I then wondered if they chose that site on purpose. Doubtful, but positive reinforcement DOES work at times...
Semantic Web - the new FIPA (Score:2, Informative)
Conflict of interest: Nobody is interested (Score:2)
This is estimated to happen soon after Microsoft will switch to a POSIX standard operating system, the RIAA will support buying musing in Ogg Vorbis format, and Sony and Microsoft will agree on a common Blu-DVD format, and airline companies will really tell you how the compute their ticket prices. And the rupture.
Seriously... the idea is beautiful in theory, but in practice people do not want their data
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously, some people do want their data to be available, and if that makes them more competitive, why not?
I didn't know that Jewish people (Score:1)