=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2180/ISWC_2018_Outrageous_Ideas_paper_8
|storemode=property
|title=What if the Primary Goal of the Web was to Foster Curiosity?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2180/ISWC_2018_Outrageous_Ideas_paper_8.pdf
|volume=Vol-2180
|authors=Praveen Paritosh
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/semweb/Paritosh18
}}
==What if the Primary Goal of the Web was to Foster Curiosity?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2180/ISWC_2018_Outrageous_Ideas_paper_8.pdf
What if the primary goal of the web was to
foster curiosity?
Praveen Paritosh
Google, San Francisco, USA
Abstract. People go to the web to satisfy their curiosity. The web con-
tains resources that can help: articles, videos, tutorials, online communi-
ties and courses, among others. In analogy to the semantic web proposal,
which was motivated by a desire to structure the web to be more un-
derstandable and usable by machines [Berners-Lee, Hendler, and Lassila,
O., 2001], we raise the question: How would we rethink the web from the
primary goal of satisfying and fostering human curiosity? We propose the
curiosity web based on the intuition that the meaning of documents, such
as articles, books, and videos, can be expressed in terms of the questions
they address [Paritosh and Marcus, 2016]. It has three representational
elements: 1) Curiosity: a URI for a question or information need, 2) Rela-
tionships between curiosities: such as relevant, prerequisite, and c) Rela-
tionships between curiosities and documents: such as addresses, satisfies.
The goal of the curiosity web is to provide an exoskeleton for organizing
information by the curiosities they address. The curiosity web is a dual
of existing semantic networks and knowledge graphs [Collins and Quil-
lian, 1972; Sowa, 2006; Hillis, 2004]. Instead of focusing on describing
meaning using analytic primitives and compositions of knowledge, this
approach represents meaning in a holistic manner, by the curiosities it
addresses.
Keywords: Knowledge Representation
1 What are some challenges for existing models of
organizing knowledge?
In areas of information of wide public value, such as healthcare, culture, lifestyle,
arts; social, experiential, and subjective knowledge abounds. Consider the in-
formation needs of an expectant mother over the course of the pregnancy to
childbirth to raising and parenting the child. While we have made great strides
in representing and organizing structured knowledge about people, places, and
things, not as much progress has been made in organizing such social knowledge.
For example, Wikipedia, knowledge graphs, web markup, and wikidata, to
name a few, can tell us a lot about the movie Blade Runner: when it was released,
who produced it, the cast, the screenwriter, the ratings on imdb and other sites,
etc. These are verifiable facts that we have consensus on. But there are more
complex curiosities about the movie, e.g.,
2 P. Paritosh
– Why did they name the movie Blade Runner?
– What makes it a cult classic?
– What are the differences between the various different cuts of this movie?
– What does the origami represent in the movie?
These are legitimate curiosities. The state-of-the-art in knowledge graphs and
structured data does not have the schemata to represent the knowledge required
to understand, let alone answer such questions. In addition, we lack scalable
methods of curating such social knowledge as it involves subjectivity and mul-
tiple, even conflicting, perspectives. Aggregating and ranking such knowledge
goes beyond the existing operationalizations of consensus and authority. Sociol-
ogists have called this the social stock of knowledge [Berger and Luckman, 1991],
library scientists have named this everyday life information seeking [Spink and
Cole, 2001], but our communities have not paid enough attention to these do-
mains of knowledge.
There is content addressing these valuable class of information needs, but
they are hard to find. It is prevalent in forums and blogs and reviews and email
groups and social media discussions and comments and videos and books. This
knowledge is trickier to represent, curate, and evaluate. It is full of subjectiv-
ity, ambiguity, disagreement, and differing perspectives. Nevertheless, this social
stock of knowledge is vital for addressing the information needs of patients cop-
ing, parents distraught, children curious, and solving real world problems.
2 Why is social knowledge hard to organize?
Knowledge bases such as Wikipedia have too strict of an epistemological position
(e.g., objectivity, notability, verifiability) that makes it impossible to talk about
most of social knowledge that we are interested in – this knowledge literally
has no home! And so it stays in the halfway houses of community QA websites
and forums. While Wikipedia is curated and organized purposefully for a wide
readership, much of social knowledge on the web is found knowledge created as
a by product of human interaction in online communities. To someone who is
not part of this community and thread, this content is not finessed and curated
for their consumption. More structured knowledge graphs [Bollacker et al., 2008]
lack the primitives such as verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, as well as the notion
of context and perspective [Guha, 1991], which makes it impossible to represent
social knowledge.
Knowledge graphs, topic maps, concept maps provide exoskeletons for or-
ganizing the map of knowledge. What are they missing? Topics are too coarse
and are not helpful for describing the aspects that you care about, and the con-
nectivity between topics does not include any kind of conceptual or curricular
organization. And lastly, in our communities of computer scientists and engi-
neers, we have a epistemological inclination toward precision, truth, accuracy,
which is limiting for characterizing social knowledge.
What if the primary goal of the web was to foster curiosity? 3
3 How can we organize knowledge by curiosities?
The curiosity web is an approach to organizing knowledge by curiosities. The
underlying intuition is that we can express what a document does, for the pur-
poses of information consumption, by connecting it to the questions it addresses.
We choose to start with questions, since they are shorter and simpler than an-
swers. In addition, we can disagree about the answers more than we can about
the questions, providing a more stable foundation for the knowledge in answers.
It involves curating URIs for curiosities and the relationships between curiosi-
ties (such as related, prerequisite), and relationships between curiosities and
resources (such as addresses, satisfies).
Fig. 1. A small slice of the curiosity web focusing on the questions of parents and
documents related to them
First, it proposes a Curiosity as a first class semantic primitive for repre-
senting information needs. A curiosity has a stable URI, textual descriptions and
elaborations in multiple languages. Just Wikipedia curates the topic for the book
Alice in Wonderland represents and abstracts away across specific editions and
copies of the books, curiosities will be curated by abstracting from questions.
Thus, a curiosity might further point to one or more questions on the web that
surface that curiosity.
Second, the curiosity web contains relationships between curiosities. The
most simple relationship between two curiosities might be that they are rel-
evant to each other, e.g., someone interested in one might find the other useful.
In addition, there might be curricular relations such as prerequisite, enables, and
other relationships such as temporal order, granularity, level of detail, etc.
Third, the curiosity web contains relationships between curiosities and docu-
ments. The simplest relationship is that a document addresses a curiosity. We
4 P. Paritosh
can imagine additional relationships such as evokes, satisfies, etc. Figure 1 shows
a hypothetical example of a small part of the curiosity web around curiosities
related to parenting.
4 How will we build and maintain the curiosity web?
There are existing examples of organizing knowledge using questions, e.g., the
widespread usage of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to organize community
knowledge on forums and usenet [Hammond et al., 1995]. Another starting point
for questions on the web might be in schema.org/Question markup [Guha, Brick-
ley, Macbeth, 2016]. Further, community QA sites like stackexchange.com merge
similar questions into one thread, so as to not fragment content across multiple
threads. Another example is amazon.com, which has a crowdsourced product
FAQ page attached to every product on its website. Questions are a compact
human understandable and curatable knowledge representation for information
needs.
Building and maintaining the curiosity web is feasible, below are some models
addressing parts of the task:
1. Community driven: Imagine Curiositypedia, built on top of Wikipedia com-
munity principles to curate curiosities and connections between them.
2. Webmaster driven: Imagine schema.org markup for articles and content by
webmasters to make their content more available to user questions and search
engines.
3. Machine driven: Using technologies such as statistical machine translation,
annotate documents and resources on the web with curiosities they address
4. User driven: As users consume content, they can help annotate it with their
questions that the content addressed, much like collaborative tagging efforts
[Golder and Huberman, 2006]. Everybody can be a curator, and the web
gets better as users leave trails!
5 How will the curiosity web help foster human curiosity?
Curiosity is the urge to know. Curiosity is the fascination with the unknown. A
curiosity is a desire to know or learn something, e.g., one might want to know
how to make their omelettes fluffier, or why their five-year old cant shake of
his temper tantrums, or the meaning of it all. This might be motivated by a
need to solve a problem or explore new domains. This might surface in forms
such as questions posed to friends or queries to search engines. It surfaces as
piquing of the neck, furrowing of brows, rising pitch in the cadence, the question
mark in the sentence, the queries to search engines, the questions for elders and
librarians, the communities of inquiry, the processes of accumulating knowledge,
such as science and spirituality.
The obvious unknown is the known unknown – the location of the restaurant
your friend recommended, the latest on the California fires, the weather tomor-
row, etc. These are unknowns just on the surface of what we know and need.
What if the primary goal of the web was to foster curiosity? 5
Resolving them quickly improves our lives and makes us expand our surface of
known. Then there is the unknown unknown. Things that are so beyond our
stock of known that we wouldnt even know what to ask. And yet, our curiosity
is fascinated with these unknowns – the desire to travel, to seek new experiences,
to go outside our comfort zone, to get intoxicated, to seek diversity; these are
some real risks and commitments to a fascination with this distant unknown.
Even though we dont have a specific question (usually) when we visit a new
place, that journey and interactions there could teach us new things, or help us
see what we knew in a new light, and lead us to new questions.
The curiosity web can make it easier for the creators, curators, and consumers
of content to annotate content with curiosities they address. Someone else, who
later has that curiosity, does not have to figure out how their curiosity maps to
some taxonomy, or know the right terms to pose queries, but can more directly
rediscover such content. In addition, being able to connect curiosities together
allows us to build and follow the trails of knowledge that the Memex machine
dreamt of [Bush, 1945].
References
1. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific
american, 284(5), 34-43.
2. Bollacker, K., Evans, C., Paritosh, P., Sturge, T., and Taylor, J. (2008, June). Free-
base: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management
of data (pp. 1247-1250).
3. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The atlantic monthly, 176(1), 101-108.
4. Cacioppo, J. T., and Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of per-
sonality and social psychology, 42(1), 116.
5. Collins, A. M., and Quillian, M. R. (1972). Experiments on semantic memory and
language comprehension.
6. Guha, R. V., Brickley, D., and Macbeth, S. (2016). Schema. org: evolution of struc-
tured data on the web. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 44-51.
7. Hammond, K., Burke, R., Martin, C., and Lytinen, S. (1995, February). FAQ finder:
a case-based approach to knowledge navigation. In Artificial Intelligence for Appli-
cations, 1995. Proceedings., 11th Conference on (pp. 80-86).
8. Hillis, W. D. (2004). Aristotle (the knowledge web). Edge Foundation, Inc, 138.
9. Paritosh, P., and Marcus, G. (2016). Toward a comprehension challenge, using
crowdsourcing as a tool. AI Magazine, 37(1), 23-30.
10. Sowa, J. F. (2006). Semantic networks. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.