DERI Stream Meeting 2010: What I'm working on


Published on

A short presentation to re-introduce myself and my work to colleagues in DERI's Social Semantic Information Spaces stream. Besides my Ph.D. work on Social Semantic Argumentation, I talked about two W3C projects I participate in, Library Linked Data and HCLS's Scientific Discourse group. (Ontologies for Reading & Writing Science).

Our stream consists of two DERI units, Siegfried Handschuh's SmILE (Semantic Desktop) group and Alexandre Passant's USS (Social Software) group.

I was particularly proud of having only 1 slide overlap with the research talk I gave to the DERI institute meeting the previous week.

Published in: Technology
  • 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
  • philosophy, history of math/sci, linguistics, literature, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, text message for health promotion
  • Inquiry and Pedagogical and Information-seeking dialogues are almost entirely knowledge-based, while knowledge plays only a minor role in Negotiation (aiming at a harmonious settlement) and Quarrel (beneficial mainly for venting emotions). Knowledge plays some role in the remaining three types: in Debate, airing arguments (rather than settling them) is of primary importance; in Deliberation and Persuasion, opinion and belief have a large role. In the following, we focus primarily on knowledge-based argumentation.
  • Cognitive Coherence Relations consist of 4 basic attributes: * source:  semantic vs. pragmatic* type: addition or sequence or type* comparativeness: comparison vs. concurring * polarity: positive vs. negativeThis results in 17 categories ('type' isn't quite binary, though I think you could create a super-category to contain 'addition' and 'sequence').
  • Use of LD principles and perspectiveSuggest further steps
  • “Evolve this over time into a more general facility for many types of scientific discourse, and which is linked to key biological categories specified by ontologies.“
  • For iHop see A Gene Network for Navigating the Literature. Hoffmann, R., Valencia, A. Nature Genetics 36, 664 (2004).
  • DERI Stream Meeting 2010: What I'm working on

    1. 1. What I’m Working On: Social Semantic Argumentation, Library Linked Data, Ontologies for Reading & Writing Science<br />Jodi Schneider<br />DERI Social Semantic Information Spaces Stream Meeting<br />2010-12-13<br />Galway, Ireland<br />
    2. 2. My Background<br />Liberal Arts - Great Books<br />Math<br />Automatic theorem proving, Knot theory, PDE’s of traffic flow<br />Psychology<br />Online identity - subpersonalities, image (Goffman)<br />Self-surveillance, Persuasive uses of technology (‘captology’)<br />Libraries + technology<br />FRBR – what is a book? entity/relationship model<br />Code4Lib – library technologists, digital librarians, semweb<br />“library values for the Internet”<br />Hobbies<br />tagging, radio, reading…<br />2<br />
    3. 3. DERI Hats<br />Ph.D. Student<br />Argumentation on the Social Semantic Web<br />Standardization Work<br />W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group<br />W3C Health Care & Life Sciences – Scientific Discourse Task Force<br />
    4. 4. Argumentation<br />
    5. 5. Social Semantic Web<br />5<br />
    6. 6. WWW: Detect Contentious Issues<br />Ennals, R., Trushkowsky, B., & Agosta, J. M. (2010). Highlighting Disputed Claims on the Web. In WICOW at WWW 2010. <br />
    7. 7. Social Web: Summarize + Map<br />
    8. 8. Semantic Web: Use Arg Schemes<br />Zablith, F. (2007). ArgDF: Arguments on the Semantic Web (Master's). The British University in Dubai & The University of Edinburgh.<br />
    9. 9. Social Semantic Web: Analyze<br />
    10. 10. Different types of argument<br />
    11. 11. Types of argumentation sites<br />Issue networking<br />Explore the agreements, disagreements, and rationales<br />Get a view of the issues and possibilities<br />Funneling<br />Brainstorm, categorize, vote, …<br />Get to consensus<br />Reputation<br />Compete to find the best answers<br />Get experts, repository of answers<br />
    12. 12. Cognitive Coherence Relations<br />Polarity<br />Positive vs. Negative<br />Source of coherence<br />Semantic vs. Pragmatic<br />Type<br />Addition or Cause or Sequence<br />Comparativeness<br />Comparison vs. Concurring<br />
    13. 13. Cognitive Coherence Relations<br />
    14. 14. W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group<br />“incubate” for 1 year<br />Goal: Report on library adoption of Linked Data<br />So far: 40+ use cases in clusters:<br />Bibliographic data<br />Authority data<br />Vocabulary alignment<br />Archives & heterogeneous data<br />Citations<br />Digital objects<br />CKAN data collection<br />
    15. 15. W3C HCLS – Scientific Discourse Task Force<br />Longterm, ongoing activity<br />Goal: A SemWeb platform for biomedical discourse<br />Previous outcomes: SWAN, SWAN/SIOC<br />Current focus:<br />Annotation Ontology <br />–provenance-aware<br />Mark and connect non-SemWeb docs <br />Models of Rhetorical structure<br />coarse-grained<br />middle-grained<br />Bibliographic Ontologies (align/integrate SWAN citations)<br />“Scientific Article of the Future” – provenance, data, <br />
    16. 16. Ontology-aware reading?<br /> screenshot from Renear & Palmer. Science 2009: “Strategic Reading, Ontologies, and the Future of Scientific Publishing.” 325:828-832.<br />
    17. 17. Thank You!<br />Questions & Comments?<br /><br />