• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation
 

Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation

on

  • 2,611 views

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,611
Views on SlideShare
2,052
Embed Views
559

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
28
Comments
1

2 Embeds 559

http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk 558
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation Presentation Transcript

    • 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
    • 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
    • The dizzy world of “Web 2.0” http://hello.eboy.com/eboy/wp-content/uploads/shop/EBY_FooBar_35t.png 3
    • Defining “Web 2.0” 4
    • Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia 5
    • Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia Open applications that serve one activity very well http://37signals.com 6
    • Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia Open applications that serve one activity very well http://rememberthemilk.com 7
    • Web 2.0: social networks, media sharing, and mass collaboration 8
    • Web 2.0: social networks, media sharing, and mass collaboration 9
    • Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics 10
    • Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics   Tagclouds: simple visualization of keywords by popularity, reflecting emergent community “folksonomy” 11
    • 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
    • Web 2.0: interoperability, mashups, embedded content 13
    • 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
    • The bottom line: The bar has been raised for the Web user and developer experience Are COMMA tools up to the challenge? 15
    • Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   Debatepedia — a wiki structured into arguments for and against a question   http://wiki.idebate.org 16
    • Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   TruthMapping — distinguishes unsupported premises from evidenced claims   http://truthmapping.com 17
    • Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   DebateGraph — an IBIS-based tool providing a structured outline view   http://debategraph.net 18
    • Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   CoPe_it! —IBIS-based tool providing threads, maps and decision-support   http://copeit.cti.gr/site 19
    • Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   ClaiMaker/ClaimFinder — semantic annotation and search of scholarly literature   http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto 20
    • Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   ArgDF — first platform implementing AIF in RDF   http://argdf.org 21
    • 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
    • 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
    • Cohere homepage: people + ideas + connections 24
    • Cohere: creating a new Idea for Google’s “Knol”, linked to a website 25
    • Cohere: embedding an Idea or Map in another website (a blog post) 26
    • Cohere: raising issues about Google’s “Knol” Idea 27
    • Cohere: from tag clouds to idea webs 28
    • 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
    • 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
    • Expanding the neutral and negative connection menus default connection labels are listed first user-defined connections can be appended 31
    • Cohere: all incoming and outgoing links from a focal Idea 32
    • Cohere: Argument from Expert Opinion with Critical Questions (from Walton & Reed) 33
    • Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 34
    • Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 35
    • Cohere: a mashup visualization merging different connections around a common Idea 36
    • 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
    • Cohere usage statistics (cont/d) manually created in Cohere Imported into Cohere from Compendium RSS feeds from del.icio.us 38
    • 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
    • Cohere v1 (the current public release) is a closed application Database (MySQL) 40
    • 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
    • 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
    • Thank You! Resources…   Cohere: cohereweb.net   Cohere blog: kmi.open.ac.uk/technologies/cohere   Hypermedia Discourse research: kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse 43