Slideshow Transcript

1. Slide 1: Keynote Address 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures Sheffield, July 2007 / www.iccs.info Hypermedia Discourse: Contesting Networks of Ideas & Arguments Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute & Computing Research Centre The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK www.kmi.open.ac.uk/people/sbs sbs@acm.org 1 © Simon Buckingham Shum
2. Slide 2: Acknowledgements Compendium Project: Scholarly Ontologies Project: Al Selvin (Verizon/Open U.) Victoria Uren Maarten Sierhuis (NASA) Gangmin Li Jeff Conklin (CogNexus Inst.) Clara Mancini Michelle Bachler (Open U.) Neil Benn Bertrand Sereno John Domingue Enrico Motta Funding gratefully acknowledged: 2 © Simon Buckingham Shum
3. Slide 3: Ideas… Foundations for Civilization… Weapons of Mass Destruction… 3 © Simon Buckingham Shum
4. Slide 4: Ideas… (aren’t everything) So what’s he got that I haven’t got? 4 © Simon Buckingham Shum
5. Slide 5: Significance?… =? 5 © Simon Buckingham Shum
6. Slide 6: Significance?… =? 6 © Simon Buckingham Shum
7. Slide 7: Significance?… =? http://flickr.com/photos/pewari/354960548 http://flickr.com/photos/voetmann/274550156 © http://flickr.com/photos/notorious_indian/540058288 7 Simon Buckingham Shum
8. Slide 8: Significance?… context =? 8 © Simon Buckingham Shum
9. Slide 9: Significance?… =? =? =? =? =? =? =? 9 © Simon Buckingham Shum
10. Slide 10: Significance?… = 10 © Simon Buckingham Shum
11. Slide 11: Significance?… = 11 © Simon Buckingham Shum
12. Slide 12: Our context (1) “I want to talk about the challenge of our generation. […] Our challenge, our generation’s unique challenge, is learning to live peacefully and sustainably in an extraordinarily crowded world. “The way of solving problems requires one fundamental change, a big one, and that is learning that the challenges of our generation are not us versus them, they are not us versus Islam, us versus the terrorists, us versus Iran, they are us, all of us together on this planet against a set of shared and increasingly urgent problems.” Jerey Sachs: 2007 Reith Lectures http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007 12 © Simon Buckingham Shum
13. Slide 13: Doug Engelbart (cont/d)  Engelbart (1963): A Conceptual Framework for the Augmentation of Man’s Intellect  A concept structure (...) is something that can be designed or modified, and a basic hypothesis of our study is that better concept structures can be developed —structures that when mapped into a human’s mental structure will significantly improve his capability to comprehend and to find solutions within his complex-problem solving situations. Englebart (1963— reprinted in Greif, 1988: p. 54) 13 © Simon Buckingham Shum
14. Slide 14: Our context (2) “With these “minds”, a person will be well equipped to deal with what is expected, as well as with what cannot be anticipated; without these minds, a person will be at the mercy of forces that he or she can’t understand, let alone control. “The disciplined mind… the synthesizing mind… the creating mind… the respectful mind… the ethical mind.” Howard Gardner: Five Minds for the Future. Harvard Univ. Press, 2006: p.2 14 © Simon Buckingham Shum
15. Slide 15: Hypermedia Discourse Research published claims and arguments as hypermedia discourse networks Scaffold emergent models of contested worlds by scaffolding team deliberations discourse as hypermedia about them… discourse networks 15 © Simon Buckingham Shum
16. Slide 16: The missing layer: “Web Pragmatics” significance? semantic web grounded in a consensus domain model minimising inconsistency, ambiguity, controversy metadata grounded in a consensus domain model minimising inconsistency, ambiguity, controversy resources documents, datasets, etc… etc… 16 © Simon Buckingham Shum
17. Slide 17: Hypermedia Discourse 17 © Simon Buckingham Shum
18. Slide 18: Hypermedia Modelling discourse relations Expressing dierent perspectives on a conceptual space Supporting the incremental formalization of ideas Rendering structural visualizations Connecting heterogeneous content 18 © Simon Buckingham Shum
19. Slide 19: Discourse Verbal and written workplace communication Discourse communities: “making and taking perspectives” Dialogue Argumentation Claim making Analytical narrative Meetings 19 © Simon Buckingham Shum
20. Slide 20: Hypermedia Discourse research Discourse Ontology Literacy/ Notation(s) Fluency Intuitive Computational User Interface Services 20 © Simon Buckingham Shum
21. Slide 21: • personal or group concept mapping • real time meeting Compendium capture • participatory modelling • discourse as semantic hypertext 21 © Simon Buckingham Shum
22. Slide 22: Dialogue Map fragment: Gary’s keynote Q&A 22 © Simon Buckingham Shum
23. Slide 23: Discourse grounded in Horst Rittel’s IBIS: Issue-Based Information System 23 © Simon Buckingham Shum
24. Slide 24: Key elements of Compendium • Shared visual display • Simple notation • Template patterns • Node transclusions Knowledge • Tagging • Hypermedia Media • Interoperability with other data, services and user interfaces Modelling Practitioner skills Frameworks e.g. • Cognitive skills to chunk and link ideas e.g. (Buckingham Shum) • IBIS • Dialogue Mapping (Conklin) • CommonKADS • Conversational Modelling (Sierhuis & Selvin) • World Modelling • Participatory Hypermedia Construction • Critical Systems Heuristics (Selvin) 24 © Simon Buckingham Shum
25. Slide 25: Compendium: hypertext discourse mapping/conceptual modelling 25 © Simon Buckingham Shum
26. Slide 26: Compendium: hypertext discourse mapping/conceptual modelling 26 © Simon Buckingham Shum
27. Slide 27: Compendium: Descendent of gIBIS 27 © Simon Buckingham Shum
28. Slide 28: Modelling using Issue-templates 28 © Simon Buckingham Shum
29. Slide 29: Modelling organisational processes in Compendium using a Template 29 © Simon Buckingham Shum
30. Slide 30: Completing a Compendium template 30 © Simon Buckingham Shum
31. Slide 31: Generating Custom Documents and Diagrams from Compendium Templates Field Integrated/ Deviations/ Specific Installation Assignable Approvals Revised Changes Assignments Details/ Inventory Requirements (Engr Sched) /Assignment Specs/NDO Notice (E1) List Build Assignable Inventory Assignable Inventory 31 © Simon Buckingham Shum
32. Slide 32: Structure management in Compendium Associative linking  nodes in a shared context connected by graphical Map links Categorical membership  nodes in dierent contexts connected by common attributes via metadata Tags Hypertextual Transclusion  reuse of the same node in dierent views Templates  reuse of the same structure in dierent views HTML, XML and RDF data exports for interoperability  Java and SQL interfaces to add services  32 © Simon Buckingham Shum
33. Slide 33: Heuristic for balanced Dialogue Mapping (from Je Conklin’s book “Dialogue Mapping”, 2003) 33 © Simon Buckingham Shum
34. Slide 34: Using Compendium for personnel recovery planning Example of Conversational Modelling: real time dialogue mapping combined with model driven templates (AI+IA) Co-OPR Project (with Austin Tate): http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/co-opr 34 © Simon Buckingham Shum
35. Slide 35: Mission Briefing: Intent template Answers to template issues provided in the JTFC Briefing. Answers may be constrained by predefined options, as specified in the XML schema 35 © Simon Buckingham Shum
36. Slide 36: Capturing political deliberation/rationale Dialogue Map capturing the planners’ discussion of this option 36 © Simon Buckingham Shum
37. Slide 37: Planning Engine input to Compendium Issues on which the I-X planning engine provided candidate Options 37 © Simon Buckingham Shum
38. Slide 38: Modelling a document corpus: The Iraq Debate http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/compendium/iraq 38 © Simon Buckingham Shum
39. Slide 39: Annotating a document corpus: Chomsky’s article in the Iraq Debate http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/compendium/iraq 39 © Simon Buckingham Shum
40. Slide 40: Large scale NASA e-science field trials: Interoperability with other databases, software agents and collaboration tools www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/coakting/nasa Clancey, W.J., Sierhuis, M., Alena, R., Berrios, D., Dowding, J., Graham, J.S., Tyree, K.S., Hirsh, R.L., Garry, W.B., Semple, A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Shadbolt, N. and Rupert, S. (2005). “Automating CapCom Using Mobile Agents and Robotic Assistants.” 1st Space Exploration Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 31 Jan-1 Feb, 2005, Orlando, FL. Available from: AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc [CD-ROM]: Reston, VA, and as Advanced Knowledge Technologies ePrint 375: http://eprints.aktors.org/375 40 © Simon Buckingham Shum
41. Slide 41: 41 © Simon Buckingham Shum Image Credits--- Mars: NASA/JPL/MSSS; Earth: NASA/JSC; Composite: MSSS
42. Slide 42: NASA e-science field trials (2004 and 2005) Distributed Mars-Earth planning and data analysis tools for Mars Habitat field trial in Utah desert, supported from US+UK www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/coakting/nasa 42 © Simon Buckingham Shum
43. Slide 43: NASA Mobile Agents Architecture 43 © Simon Buckingham Shum
44. Slide 44: Collaboration Configuration Compendium used as a collaboration medium at all intersections: humans+agents, reading+writing maps Software Agent Scientist Architecture (Earth) (Mars) Scientist Scientist Scientist Scientist (Earth) (Mars) (Mars) (Earth) RST-telecon-2005-04-11.i.avi 00:49:08 44 © Simon Buckingham Shum
45. Slide 45: NASA testbed: Compendium activity plans for surface exploration, constructed by scientists on ‘Earth’, interpreted by software agents on ‘Mars’ Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission The Compendium nodes and relationships in this plan were interpreted by Brahms software agents for monitoring and coordinating astronaut and robot activity during surface explorations. RST-telecon-2005-04-11.i.avi 45 © Simon Buckingham Shum 1:11:57
46. Slide 46: CoAKTinG NASA testbed: Compendium science data map, generated by software agents, for interpretation by Mars+Earth scientists Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission The Compendium maps were autonomously created and populated with science data by Brahms software agents that use models of the © Simon Buckingham work process, data flow and science data relationships to create the maps. mission plan, Shum 46
47. Slide 47: CoAKTinG NASA testbed: Compendium-based photo analysis by geologists on ‘Mars’ Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission 47 © Simon Buckingham Shum
48. Slide 48: NASA testbed: Compendium scientific feedback map from Earth scientists to Mars colleagues Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission 48 © Simon Buckingham Shum
49. Slide 49: Using Compendium to map and automatically index replayable video conferences CoAKTinG Project: www.aktors.org/coakting Memetic Project: www.memetic-vre.net 49 © Simon Buckingham Shum
50. Slide 50: Collaborative sensemaking in e-Science: Meeting Replay tool for Earth scientists, synchronising video of Mars crew’s discussion as they annotate their mission plans Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission NASA MR Clip: 00:50 50 © Simon Buckingham Shum
51. Slide 51: Memetic Meeting Replay The CoAKTinG project’s results are now mainstreamed in the Access Grid by the JISC Memetic VRE project 51 © Simon Buckingham Shum
52. Slide 52: Memetic Meeting Replay The CoAKTinG project’s results are now mainstreamed in the Access Grid by the JISC Memetic VRE project 52 © Simon Buckingham Shum
53. Slide 53: Compendium ‘literacy’? …understanding how to write, read, talk and think in hypermedia IBIS …approaches from consultancy in the field, and video analysis in the lab… 53 © Simon Buckingham Shum
54. Slide 54: Literacy: significant user community www.CompendiumInstitute.org www.CompendiumInstitute.org 54 © Simon Buckingham Shum
55. Slide 55: Literacy: Cognitive task analysis  Cognitive tasks involved in using a graphical argumentation scheme (Buckingham Shum 1996)  Aordances of graphical DR for coordinating group design (Buckingham Shum et al 1997) 55 © Simon Buckingham Shum
56. Slide 56: Literacy: the craft skill of IBIS mapping in meetings: “Dialogue Mapping” Je Conklin: CogNexus Institute: www.CogNexus.org 56 © Simon Buckingham Shum
57. Slide 57: Literacy: expertise analysis (Albert Selvin) What is the nature of expert human performance in creating  and modifying real time conceptual structures for groups?  The NASA knowledge mapper role: Conventional  Listening and interpreting facilitation  Intervening in ‘normal’ conversation flow skills  Getting validation for captured material Knowledge  Building hypertext representations on media the fly facilitation  Interrelating data and objects  Adding metadata skills  Software-specific skills Aesthetic and Ethical Implications of Participatory Hypermedia Practice: First Year Report Selvin, A. (2005), Technical Report KMI-05-17, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK 57 © Simon Buckingham Shum
58. Slide 58: • Web publishing of Scholarly scholarly claims and Ontologies argumentation • discourse as semantic Project hypertext Will scientific publishing in 2020 still depend solely on the reading, writing, and discovery of written texts? What might a more network-centric complement look like? 58 © Simon Buckingham Shum
59. Slide 59: In Gutenberg’s shadow (or standing on his shoulders) Newspapers + Invisible Colleges = Scholarly Journals Philosophical Transactions of Le Journal des Sçavans the Royal Society of London January 1665 March 1665 59 © Simon Buckingham Shum
60. Slide 60: Jumping forward 342 years… Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Digital Research Discourse? Computational Thinking Seminar Series, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 25 Apr. 2007. http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse/docs/Simon-Edin-CompThink.pdf 60 © Simon Buckingham Shum
61. Slide 61: 2007: Ideas are now digital …digital paper! 61 © Simon Buckingham Shum
62. Slide 62: What if we could get search results like this?… “What is the Turing Debate?” One of seven maps in the Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? Series. MacroVU Press. www.macrovu.com (Horn, 2003; Yoshimi, 2006) 62 © Simon Buckingham Shum
63. Slide 63: Horn (zoomed in) MacroVU Press. www.macrovu.com 63 © Simon Buckingham Shum
64. Slide 64: Beyond document citations… These annotations are freeform summaries of an idea, as one would find in researchers’ Making formal connections journals, fieldnotes, lit. review notes or between ideas creates a blog entries semantic citation network —> novel literature navigation, querying and visualization “People try to maximise their rate of gaining “Information scent information” models” Method applies “Web User Flow by “Information Theory Information Scent foraging Claim (WUFIS)” theory” ? Paper: “The Scent of a Site: A System for Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent, Usage, and Usability of a Web Site” Addressable triple which can be contested Paper: “Information e.g. supported/challenged foraging” 64 © Simon Buckingham Shum
65. Slide 65: Combining formal relations with the expressive freedom of ‘folksonomies’ Relational classes and dialects (KMi Scholarly Ontologies project) 65 © Simon Buckingham Shum
66. Slide 66: If we model concepts in a literature as concept maps… (KMi’s ClaiMapper, built on Compendium) 66 © Simon Buckingham Shum
67. Slide 67: “Semantic del.icio.us”: KMi’s ClaimSpotter assigning and linking freeform tags Sereno, B., Buckingham Shum, S. and Motta, E. (2007). Formalization, User Strategy and Interaction Design: Users’ Behaviour with Discourse Tagging Semantics. Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge, 16th Int. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), Banff, 8-12 May 2007. http://www2007.org/workshops/paper_30.pdf 67 © Simon Buckingham Shum
68. Slide 68: Visualising claims and arguments When multiple analysts annotate web documents via a server, they can generate a shared view of how they see the field, and where they agree/disagree claimfinder.open.ac.uk 68 © Simon Buckingham Shum
69. Slide 69: “Semantic Google Scholar” KMi’s ClaimFinder 69 © Simon Buckingham Shum
70. Slide 70: Semantic Literature Analysis [ClaimFinder expt: 1:59:17] Problem: “What advantages and disadvantages does CiteSeer have compared to the ISI citation databases?” Victoria Uren, Simon Buckingham Shum, Michelle Bachler, Gary Li, (2006) Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol.64, 5, (420-445). 70 © Simon Buckingham Shum
71. Slide 71: “What papers contrast with this paper?” 1. Extract concepts for this document 2. Trace concepts on which they build 3. Trace concepts challenging this set 4. Show root documents 71 © Simon Buckingham Shum
72. Slide 72: Focusing on a concept incoming+outgoing links 72 © Simon Buckingham Shum
73. Slide 73: “Semantic Google Scholar” KMi’s ClaimFinder 73 © Simon Buckingham Shum
74. Slide 74: Lineage tree (the roots of a concept) 74 © Simon Buckingham Shum
75. Slide 75: Example: ‘argumentation’ on YouTube Movie posted by National Front on YouTube to demonstrate their activities Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 75 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm © Simon Buckingham Shum
76. Slide 76: Example: a “scientific argument” on National Front website www.natfront.com/prejudic.html Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm 76 © Simon Buckingham Shum
77. Slide 77: Mapping the structure of the National Front’s “negro intelligence” argument 77 © Simon Buckingham Shum
78. Slide 78: Refuting the NF “negro intelligence” argument using argument mapping Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm 78 © Simon Buckingham Shum
79. Slide 79: Refuting the NF “negro intelligence” argument using argument mapping Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm 79 © Simon Buckingham Shum
80. Slide 80: Importing an Argumentation Scheme as an IBIS template compendium.open.ac.uk 80 © Simon Buckingham Shum
81. Slide 81: Refuting the NF “negro intelligence” argument using argument mapping The structure of an “Argument from Bias” can be exposed.. The structure of an “Argument from Analogy” can be exposed.. 81 © Simon Buckingham Shum
82. Slide 82: Template for an “Argument from Analogy” Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm 82 © Simon Buckingham Shum
83. Slide 83: Template for an “Argument from Analogy” Instantiating the “Argument from Analogy” template 83 © Simon Buckingham Shum
84. Slide 84: Semiosis Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 84
85. Slide 85: Semantic annotation as semiosis in the Scholarly Ontologies project Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 85
86. Slide 86: Primary and secondary claims as semiotic and discourse moves Secondary claim: a discourse connective Primary claim: a semiotic move Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 86
87. Slide 87: Cognitive Coherence Relations The hypothesis:  Our symbol systems are shaped by, and designed to convey, conceptual structures: coherence  There may be some core, primitive coherence relations that manifest consistently across symbol systems and communities  Symbol systems can therefore be analysed for patterns indicating coherence relations  In written and spoken language, the cohesive devices are evidence of underlying conceptual structures  If we can codify these, we could therefore have computationally tractable representations with psychological reality Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 87
88. Slide 88: Cognitive Coherence Relations Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 88
89. Slide 89: Cognitive Coherence Relations Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 89
90. Slide 90: Returning to the relational classes and dialects derived in a data-driven, bottom up manner… (KMi Scholarly Ontologies project) …we can now locate these within a ‘relational design space’ defined by CCR dimensions… 90 © Simon Buckingham Shum
91. Slide 91: polarity source type comparativeness Cognitive Coherence Relations Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and © Simon Buckingham Shum International Cognitive Framework. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171 91
92. Slide 92: Returning to Gardner’s Five Minds for the Future… Perhaps Hypermedia Discourse tools provide a way to move fluidly between the dierent minds:  a way to provide representational scaolding for disciplined modelling  but permitting the creative breaking of patterns when needed, and the forging of new syntheses  a way to show respect for diverse stakeholders’ concerns by explicitly integrating them into the conversation  a way to bring into an analysis ‘messy’ requirements such as ethical principles, as well as hard data and constraints We have some evidence from our case studies that we’re on the right track, but there remains much to do. 92 © Simon Buckingham Shum
93. Slide 93: Ongoing research challenges…  Hypermedia Discourse at Net scale:  developing a Web 2.0 style walk-up-and-use tool to scaold analysts in the creation of semantic networks for deliberation and argumentation  Cognitive Coherence Relations patterns  modelling such structures at the CCR level to validate the hypothesis that there are generic ‘coherence patterns’  Maturing the Compendium community of practice  working on a deeper understanding of ‘fluency’  These ideas/tools and the CS community?… 93 © Simon Buckingham Shum
94. Slide 94: web pragmatics? the Pragmatic Web? pragmatic webs? “THE PRAGMATIC WEB CONFERENCE is a unique forum to envision and debate how the emerging social, semantic, multimedia Web mediates the ways in which we construct shared meaning. While there is much research and development into topics relevant to this challenge such as collaboration, usability, knowledge representation, and social informatics, the Pragmatic Web conference provides common ground for dialogue at the nexus of these topics.” 94 © Simon Buckingham Shum
95. Slide 95: Hypermedia Discourse project: community / theory / software / screencasts / case studies / user studies www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse Knowledge Cartography Compendium Institute Dialogue Mapping Visualizing Argumentation Springer (2008) www.CompendiumInstitute.org www.cognexus.org www.VisualizingArgumentation.info 95 © Simon Buckingham Shum
96. Slide 96: 96 © Simon Buckingham Shum