Published on

The “Claims Web”: a starting point for Social Semantic Argumentation -- a work in progress presentation to my research group.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Find out… when microbloggers express approval of or provide brief counterpoints to blog posts, or where forums and listservs point to and extend wiki Talk page disputes
  • AIF, From Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 00:0, 1{25. c 2007, Cambridge University PressTowards an Argument Interchange FormatCarlos Chesnev ~ ar,1Jarred McGinnis,2Sanjay Modgil,3IyadRahwan,4;2ChrisReed,5 Guillermo Simari,5 Matthew South,3 Gerard Vreeswijk,8Steven Willmott9
  • Claimsweb

    1. 1. The “Claims Web”: a starting point for Social Semantic Argumentation<br />Jodi Schneider<br />Work in Progress presentation<br />DERI Social Software Unit<br />2011-08-05<br />Second Year GRC Report<br />2011-07-15<br />Galway, Ireland<br />
    2. 2. Social Semantic Web<br />2<br />
    3. 3. Argumentation<br />
    4. 4. The “Claims Web”: a starting point for Social Semantic ArgumentationA tale of two whiskeys<br />Jodi Schneider<br />Work in Progress presentation<br />DERI Social Software Unit<br />2011-08-05<br />Second Year GRC Report<br />2011-07-15<br />Galway, Ireland<br />
    5. 5. What’s the best whiskey to buy, on a budget?<br />What’s a good Irish whiskey to bring as a hospitality gift?<br />Do you have any advice for alcohol that's mainly available in the U.S.? Not super-expensive, but kind of nice?<br />
    6. 6. Which answer would you rather get?<br />I had a little think about it, and I came up with a list of options for you. ….<br />OR<br /><br />
    7. 7.
    8. 8. Need for “sensemaking”<br />There are a growing number of conversations on the Social Web, but we do not take advantage of all the social knowledge and social belief.<br />There are no readily-available summaries for threads of conversation, meaning we must wade through redundant posts, often with poor rhetoric (e.g. circular reasoning).<br />Multiple disparate conversations may occur on the same topic, and there is no easy way to bring these together.<br />Hard to identify people with similar, different opinions from me<br />
    9. 9. Building a Web of CLAIMS<br />9<br />What if instead of following mailing lists, blogs, online magazines, scientific journals…<br />You could search for and follow CLAIMS?<br />What are the important claims about “Irish whiskey”? (or “climate change” or “sensor networks” or…)?<br />What are the points of disagreement?<br />Who is making these claims? <br />Should I believe them?<br />Do they have conflicts of interest?<br />Are they trustworthy? Do people I trust, trust them?<br />Are their ideas credible?<br />Do they have similar needs? Do the same aspects and features of the problem matter to them? <br />
    10. 10. Why build the Claims Web?<br />What do you do when people disagree?<br />Getting meaning from inconsistent knowledge<br />Relevant for collaborative filtering, decision-making, sensemaking, …<br />Claims & Reasons are fundamental… and need to be connected!<br />10<br />
    11. 11. Moving towards a Web of Arguments<br />World Wide Argument Web (WWAW) isn’t here yet<br /> “a large-scale Web of interconnected arguments posted by individuals to express their opinions in a structured manner'’ (Rahwan 2007). <br />RDFS and OWL, Argument Interchange Format (AIF).<br />Problems with the WWAW for the Social Web<br />AIF requires argument schemes – overly complex!<br />Users don’t explicitly mark their positions. Need to infer.<br />Claims Web will move us towards the WWAW<br />Extract info from users’ posts.<br />Cover only the Social Web.<br />Focus on claims & reasons.<br />11<br />
    12. 12. Existing argumentation technology is complex<br />Argument schemes (e.g. Walton’s) for analysts<br />Argument Interchange Format<br />GOAL: Bridge existing work to suit *humans*, informal discussions <br />
    13. 13.
    14. 14. 14<br />
    15. 15. Approaches<br />Mixed-initiative systems<br />Natural language processing to discover/infer claims & reasons<br />Executable English to make it easy to specify<br />Games with a purpose to encourage people<br />
    16. 16. Process <br />
    17. 17. Detailed Process<br />
    18. 18. Build a web of claims to:<br />Gather knowledge from the inconsistent opinions of a crowd<br />Integrate argumentative conversations across the silos of the social web<br />Provide support for socially-embeddedsensemaking and decision-making<br />
    19. 19. Questions? Comments?<br />19<br />
    20. 20. Example argument from Wikipedia deletion discussions<br />