Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation

  • 2,812 views
Uploaded on

Slides accompanying the paper: ...

Slides accompanying the paper:

Buckingham Shum, Simon (2008). Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. In: Proc. COMMA'08: 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 28-30 May 2008, Toulouse, France. Preprint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,812
On Slideshare
2,229
From Embeds
583
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
29
Comments
1
Likes
5

Embeds 583

http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk 566
http://simon.buckinghamshum.net 16
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse, May 2008 Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University Milton Keynes, UK http://kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License 1
  • 2. Overview   The Web 2.0 phenomenon   Key aspects for COMMA end-user tools   Web argumentation state of the art   Cohere   Limitations and future work 2
  • 3. The dizzy world of “Web 2.0” http://hello.eboy.com/eboy/wp-content/uploads/shop/EBY_FooBar_35t.png 3
  • 4. Defining “Web 2.0” 4
  • 5. Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia 5
  • 6. Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia Open applications that serve one activity very well http://37signals.com 6
  • 7. Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia Open applications that serve one activity very well http://rememberthemilk.com 7
  • 8. Web 2.0: social networks, media sharing, and mass collaboration 8
  • 9. Web 2.0: social networks, media sharing, and mass collaboration 9
  • 10. Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics 10
  • 11. Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics   Tagclouds: simple visualization of keywords by popularity, reflecting emergent community “folksonomy” 11
  • 12. Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics   Wikis: designed to enable a community to add structure as and when they need, not be locked into a set of predefined forms 12
  • 13. Web 2.0: interoperability, mashups, embedded content 13
  • 14. Web 2.0: interoperability, mashups, embedded content RSS as data exchange lingua franca APIs enable data mashups + services easily embeddable media helps them spread virally http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/launch_anim_slavery.shtml 14
  • 15. The bottom line: The bar has been raised for the Web user and developer experience Are COMMA tools up to the challenge? 15
  • 16. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   Debatepedia — a wiki structured into arguments for and against a question   http://wiki.idebate.org 16
  • 17. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   TruthMapping — distinguishes unsupported premises from evidenced claims   http://truthmapping.com 17
  • 18. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   DebateGraph — an IBIS-based tool providing a structured outline view   http://debategraph.net 18
  • 19. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   CoPe_it! —IBIS-based tool providing threads, maps and decision-support   http://copeit.cti.gr/site 19
  • 20. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   ClaiMaker/ClaimFinder — semantic annotation and search of scholarly literature   http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto 20
  • 21. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   ArgDF — first platform implementing AIF in RDF   http://argdf.org 21
  • 22. Conclusion: there are currently no “Web 2.0” argumentation tools   There are no tools satisfying all of the following criteria:   Provide an engaging, “walk up and use” interface   Make it easy to link to, and embed argumentation in other websites (like a YouTube movie)   Enable end-user definition of the semantics   Promote networking between participants   Provide an open architecture with API services 22
  • 23. Cohere is introduced not as an argumentation tool, but as a tool for making meaningful connections between ideas. Argumentation is just one possible application that some users may want to pursue 23
  • 24. Cohere homepage: people + ideas + connections 24
  • 25. Cohere: creating a new Idea for Google’s “Knol”, linked to a website 25
  • 26. Cohere: embedding an Idea or Map in another website (a blog post) 26
  • 27. Cohere: raising issues about Google’s “Knol” Idea 27
  • 28. Cohere: from tag clouds to idea webs 28
  • 29. Ideas may be assigned a Role in the context of a given connection   your assumption may be my problem…   my claim may be your evidence…   The default Idea role can be specialized to one of the preset examples or user-defined 29
  • 30. Cohere: extensible connection language doesn’t lock users into one ontology, except to classify connections as positive, neutral or negative to assist subsequent filtering 30
  • 31. Expanding the neutral and negative connection menus default connection labels are listed first user-defined connections can be appended 31
  • 32. Cohere: all incoming and outgoing links from a focal Idea 32
  • 33. Cohere: Argument from Expert Opinion with Critical Questions (from Walton & Reed) 33
  • 34. Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 34
  • 35. Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 35
  • 36. Cohere: a mashup visualization merging different connections around a common Idea 36
  • 37. Cohere usage statistics   We are logging a range of statistics — yet to be analysed, e.g. Approx 1-3 new users/day register, consistent for last few months 37
  • 38. Cohere usage statistics (cont/d) manually created in Cohere Imported into Cohere from Compendium RSS feeds from del.icio.us 38
  • 39. Limitations, and future work   Interface not responsive on all platforms (Windows is currently best) or with large datasets   moving from Java to Flash visualizations   re-architecting the interface to be more efficient   Usability trials have shown weaknesses   now being tackled in a new version of the user interface   Much requested user-groups management added to strengthen the social/collaboration dimension   Cohere not currently an open platform   v2 has a RESTful services API enabling data read /write through URLs 39
  • 40. Cohere v1 (the current public release) is a closed application Database (MySQL) 40
  • 41. Cohere v2 is an open data platform + API providing REST services Firefox Other Extension Services Other User Interface Applications API (REST services) Application (PHP) Database (MySQL) 41
  • 42. Limitations, and future work (cont/d)   RDF import/export now working (+ basic AIF)   RSS feeds to be added   New mashup possibilities   arguments merged with GIS (GoogleMaps)   or timelines (Simile), etc   An open platform for COMMA researchers?   add your own user interfaces and reasoning services… 42
  • 43. Thank You! Resources…   Cohere: cohereweb.net   Cohere blog: kmi.open.ac.uk/technologies/cohere   Hypermedia Discourse research: kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse 43