Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation

2,246 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education
1 Comment
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,246
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
639
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
31
Comments
1
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation

  1. 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. 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. 3. The dizzy world of “Web 2.0” http://hello.eboy.com/eboy/wp-content/uploads/shop/EBY_FooBar_35t.png 3
  4. 4. Defining “Web 2.0” 4
  5. 5. Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia 5
  6. 6. Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia Open applications that serve one activity very well http://37signals.com 6
  7. 7. Web 2.0: user experience: simple, engaging multimedia Open applications that serve one activity very well http://rememberthemilk.com 7
  8. 8. Web 2.0: social networks, media sharing, and mass collaboration 8
  9. 9. Web 2.0: social networks, media sharing, and mass collaboration 9
  10. 10. Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics 10
  11. 11. Web 2.0: information structuring: emergent, not predefined, semantics   Tagclouds: simple visualization of keywords by popularity, reflecting emergent community “folksonomy” 11
  12. 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. 13. Web 2.0: interoperability, mashups, embedded content 13
  14. 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. 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. 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. 17. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   TruthMapping — distinguishes unsupported premises from evidenced claims   http://truthmapping.com 17
  18. 18. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   DebateGraph — an IBIS-based tool providing a structured outline view   http://debategraph.net 18
  19. 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. 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. 21. Web-based Argumentation: state of the art   ArgDF — first platform implementing AIF in RDF   http://argdf.org 21
  22. 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. 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. 24. Cohere homepage: people + ideas + connections 24
  25. 25. Cohere: creating a new Idea for Google’s “Knol”, linked to a website 25
  26. 26. Cohere: embedding an Idea or Map in another website (a blog post) 26
  27. 27. Cohere: raising issues about Google’s “Knol” Idea 27
  28. 28. Cohere: from tag clouds to idea webs 28
  29. 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. 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. 31. Expanding the neutral and negative connection menus default connection labels are listed first user-defined connections can be appended 31
  32. 32. Cohere: all incoming and outgoing links from a focal Idea 32
  33. 33. Cohere: Argument from Expert Opinion with Critical Questions (from Walton & Reed) 33
  34. 34. Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 34
  35. 35. Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 35
  36. 36. Cohere: a mashup visualization merging different connections around a common Idea 36
  37. 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. 38. Cohere usage statistics (cont/d) manually created in Cohere Imported into Cohere from Compendium RSS feeds from del.icio.us 38
  39. 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. 40. Cohere v1 (the current public release) is a closed application Database (MySQL) 40
  41. 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. 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. 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

×