Comforting, though I wish industry on-screen crediting infrastructure (maybe even metadata structures) allowed demotion or annotation to indicate toxicity of contributory roles emerging later

From “Executive producer” to “Exploitative producer”? Or is that opening a hell-gate? https://twitter.com/serenissimalaz1/status/1360765618836803585

TV not being the only place it eventually emerges that collective creativity happened despite rather than because of the putative leads...

Thinking of
https://casrai.org/credit/ 
or the older https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html

Should schema(.org) -style schemas stick to expressing the +ve?

When @libbymiller & I began FOAF we designed away from conflict, replacing even the mild [knows, knowsWell, friend] initial design with just [knows] + metadata about the evidence friendship leaves in the world - photos, writings, software. /...

We did this because even in 2000 we felt the awkwardness of the expressive power went beyond the formal content of the metadata structures:

You could say you knew someone well, even worked with them, but omit to mention a friendship. Computerized schemas are super-awks. /...

@edd @KKjernsmo & friends applied FOAF to software projects as DOAP, https://github.com/ewilderj/doap/wiki with a shortlist of indiv contributor roles [contributor, developer, documenter, helper, lead developer]. Revisiting in 2021 and thinking across a wider range of shared endeavours, /...

How - if at all - can contributions that create something (tv, book, paper, project, data, art, ...) great *despite* toxic big-name credited leads be documented? How should public metadata tiptoe into territory where human communication are too often barely whispered? /...

I remain wary of creating schemas that can make negative claims about people. The potential for abuse remains high, and the challenges of making active use of the data in face of quality/noise and freshness issues are daunting.

/...

But having beloved works sink and fade because a toxic star got all the credit is suboptimal too. @tombaker speaks of metadata Pidgin languages- http://www.dl.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/ISDL97/proceedings/thomas/thomas.html

People find a way to whisper things when explicit claims are awkward:

/...

If you create schemas that omit ways to say “this person is not my friend” but give a way to write “I worked with them & know them well & made this thing with them”, and if you at same time give a schema possibility of saying “friend”; people will imply through omission /...

The social meaning of this kind of markup goes beyond its formal semantics, but for it to get used/consumed in code it generally needs the data shapes to be documented and clear and repeatable.

/...

Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984 with “big brother is doubleplus ungood” suggests that natural language... uh... finds a way: constructed languages of any power eventually support idioms that say more than was original anticipated by their designers.

I don’t believe that avoiding machine-readable schemas expressing negativity is sustainable. But talking about most difficult aspects of human collaboration using such crude machinery is fraught w/ difficulty too.

I’ve been thinking about how http://schema.org  ‘Role’ fits-

We ( @vickitardif Guha & co) punted on contributor role problem by making a super general factoid reification mechanism. It allowed arbitrary notes to be attached to arbitrary claims but didn’t offer much guidance on how to qualify and categorize specific creative contributions /-

Elsewhere in http://schema.org  (on @richardgingras ‘s urging) @journethics @_trustproject @subbuvincent gave http://Schema.org  the ability to talk about certain aspects of organisational trust from the perspective of trust-in-journalism and newsrooms. /...

On https://schema.org/NewsMediaOrganization we have corrections, ethics, diversity policy urls for a news org. And from discussions facilitated via @wikidata ( https://dcodings.github.io/DINGO/ )
http://Schema.org  models projects as organisations. Could a “description of a project” approach help? /...

Making fiery claims about specific named individuals in public web markup comes with a ton of problems. But could markup be used to surface other related information? reports, investigations, inquests, post-mortems (literal or otherwise), apologies all leave evidence in the world

Apologies for the giant topic-sprawling thread.

The motivation is that I want to refresh http://schema.org  expressivity for talking about the nature of human achievements in collective endeavours. /...

In public schema design it is too easy to carelessly import “80-20 rule” rhetoric from Software Engineering and convince ourselves we are being agile and pragmatic when we do the easy stuff first: “PI”, “lead writer”, “producer”. /...

And also easy to be daunted by scale of task of going deeper, where we might add long-tail expressivity but in ways that make adoption/consumption and understanding of the markup too difficult.

/...

Hoping we can find some patterns and data shapes that capture more of the reality and struggles of collaborative creation, and think through how they apply to the various fields of endeavour covered by http://Schema.org  - TV, music, films, software, datasets, scholarship.

Hardest thing in schema design is how intertwingled all problems and domains can be, so am looking for thoughtful ways past analysis paralysis...

/...

Would value any perspectives here but specifically pinging @amcasari @juliaferraioli @karencoyle @mfenner @journethics @edd @libbymiller @vickitardif @KKjernsmo @arfon

So many Qs.... (eg didn’t even touch on Codemeta here)