KMi HypER 2009

1,223 views
1,128 views

Published on

Invited presentation to the Hypotheses, Evidence & Relationships Workshop, Elsevier Disruptive Technologies Lab, May 2009: http://hyp-er.wik.is

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,223
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

KMi HypER 2009

  1. 1. HypER Workshop: Hypotheses, Evidence and Relationships
 11-12 May 2009, Elsevier, Amsterdam The Hypermedia Discourse Project Tools for Annotating, Visualizing & Navigating Literature as Discourse Networks Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University Milton Keynes, UK http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/hyperdiscourse 1
  2. 2. http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/hyperdiscourse Compendium Institute 2
  3. 3. http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/hyperdiscourse Compendium Institute 3
  4. 4. questions 4
  5. 5. 1665 throws a long shadow From: To…? Chaomei Chen, 2006: Citation analysis Le Journal des Sçavans January 1665 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London March 1665 Buckingham Shum et al, 2003: lineage analysis Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Digital Research Discourse? Computational Thinking Seminar Series, School of Informatics, 5 University of Edinburgh, 25 Apr. 2007. http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse/docs/Simon-Edin-CompThink.pdf
  6. 6. The question we used to ask in 2001 at the start of the ScholOnto project   In 2010, will we still be publishing scientific results primarily as prose papers, or will a complementary infrastructure emerge that exploits the power of the social, semantic web to model the literature as a network of claims and arguments? 6
  7. 7. The question we used to ask in 2001 at the start of the ScholOnto project 20xx?   In 2010, will we still be publishing scientific results primarily as prose papers, or will a complementary infrastructure emerge that exploits the power of the social, semantic web to model the literature as a network of claims and arguments? 7
  8. 8. Questions the next generation scientific infrastructure should help answer •  “What is the evidence for this claim?” •  “Was this prediction accurate?” •  “What are the conceptual foundations for this idea?” •  “Who’s built on this idea? How?” •  “Who’s challenged this idea? Why? How?” •  “Are there distinctive perspectives on this problem?” •  “Are there inconsistencies within this school of thought?” 8
  9. 9. assumptions 9
  10. 10.   Researchers read meanings into texts that are not there, and with which the author might disagree   so we will always require manual annotation tools   we need ways to make connections to connections   extremely complex connections may remain the province of human sensemaking (e.g. is analogous to)   Good user interfaces will be needed   to view, edit and navigate HypERnets, whether manually or automatically constructed   Scientific discourse is a social process   we take huge care in our writing about how we position ourselves in relation to our peers — will we trust unsupervised machines to extract and position our more complex claims? 10
  11. 11. modelling schemes: IBIS 11
  12. 12. Rittel’s IBIS: Issue-Based Information System 12
  13. 13. Compendium: customisable, collaborative, hypermedia IBIS mapping Buckingham Shum, S., Selvin, A., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. and Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-Based Rationale: 15 Years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Rationale Management in Software Engineering (Eds.) A.H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, and B. Paech. 13 Springer-Verlag: Berlin
  14. 14. IBIS mapping of Iraq debate Buckingham Shum, S., and A. Okada. 2008. Knowledge cartography for controversies: The Iraq debate. In Knowledge cartography: 14 Software tools and mapping techniques, ed. A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, and T. Sherborne, 249–66. London: Springer.
  15. 15. Mapping a nuclear power debate on a blog
  16. 16. Mapping a nuclear power debate on a blog
  17. 17. Mapping a nuclear power debate on a blog
  18. 18. modelling schemes: ScholOnto 18
  19. 19. ScholOnto schema Connecting freeform tags with naturalistic connections (“dialects”) grounded in a formal set of relations (from semiotics and coherence relations) Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and Cognitive Framework. 19 International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171. [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/6441]
  20. 20. Scholarly discourse as CKS… Beyond document citations… Making formal connections These annotations are between ideas creates a freeform summaries of an semantic citation network —> idea, as one would also find novel literature navigation, in researchers’ journals, querying and visualization fieldnotes, lit. review notes “People try to maximise or blog entries their rate of gaining “Information scent information” models” Method “Web User Flow by applies Theory “Information Information Scent foraging (WUFIS)” Claim theory” ? Paper: “The Scent of a Site: A System for Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent, Usage, and Usability of a Web Site” Paper: “Information foraging” 20
  21. 21. topic maps and subject centric federation 21
  22. 22. Schematic: Documents, Subjects,and Relations Relations between subjects Topic Map of documents and their Subjects in subjects documents Occurrence links Document
  23. 23. Federated Subjects
  24. 24. interaction design 24
  25. 25. Interaction design for literature visualization: pilot study: paper-based literature modelling S. Buckingham Shum, V. Uren, G. Li, B. Sereno, and C. Mancini. Computational Modelling of Naturalistic Argumentation in Research 25 Literatures: Representation and Interaction Design Issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):17–47, 2006
  26. 26. Interaction design for lit. visualization From paper prototype to semiformal mapping tool   The ClaiMapper tool Starting from paper-based modelling, move from literature sketches… …to formal argument maps Evaluated in: V. Uren, S. Buckingham Shum, G. Li, and M. Bachler. Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User 26 Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5):420–445, 2006
  27. 27. Interaction design for doc. annotation Pilot study: paper-based annotation Pilot study reported in: B. Sereno, S. Buckingham Shum, and E. Motta. (2005). ClaimSpotter: an Environment to Support 27 Sensemaking with Knowledge Triples. Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 199–206, ACM
  28. 28. The ClaimSpotter annotation tool   Web 2.0-style tagging with optional community/system tag recommendations 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 28 of Structured Knowledge, 16th Int. World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada; 8-12 May 2007.
  29. 29. Lessons Learnt & Design Principles   Untrained users can do it: in their first hour they created coherent claims. UI design validated to this degree. —future work: longitudinal evaluation at scale   New users attend to what is highlighted for them (matching tags; primary doct.), and generally don’t click down a level —next version combines visualizations and document-centric features   Support incremental formalization —cf. use of is-about as a placeholder link; provide an Other… category and try to map automatically to the ontology   Users’ strategies vary — don’t assume a strong workflow a paper-based pilot study can provide insights into this   Web 2.0 UI simplicity: good design needed to provide high functionality, walk-up-and-use tools —we overwhelmed some users with overlaid suggestions for 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 29 of Structured Knowledge, 16th Int. World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada; 8-12 May 2007.
  30. 30. Cohere: from tag clouds to idea webs 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. IOS Press [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421] 30
  31. 31. Cohere: embedding an Idea or Map in another website (a blog post) 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. IOS Press [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421] 31
  32. 32. Cohere: a mashup visualization merging different connections around a common Idea 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. IOS Press [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421] 32
  33. 33. Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 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. IOS Press [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421] 33
  34. 34. Cohere: semantically filtering a focal Idea by “contrasting” connections 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. IOS Press [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421] 34
  35. 35. “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 Evaluated in: V. Uren, S. Buckingham Shum, G. Li, and M. Bachler. Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User 35 Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5):420–445, 2006
  36. 36. “What is the lineage of this idea?” Buckingham Shum, S.J., Uren, V., Li, G., Sereno, B. and Mancini, C. (2007).Modelling Naturalistic Argumentation in Research Literatures: Representation and Interaction Design Issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, (Special Issue on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Eds: C. Reed and F. Grasso, 22, (1), pp.17-47. [PrePrint: http:// oro.open.ac.uk/6463] 36
  37. 37. Current projects: scientific collective intelligence through discourse   OLnet: Open Learning Network to connect the open educational resource movement’s discourse/ evidence base: http://olnet.org   ESSENCE: e-Science/Sensemaking/Climate Change testing and integrating Web argumentation tools: http://events.kmi.open.ac.uk/essence   SocialLearn: Web 3.0 social learning/sensemaking platform with semantic discourse connections (launches end of year) 37
  38. 38. Marriage made in heaven? Human Machine annotation annotation 38
  39. 39. Workshop Qs:   Corpus you are working on; community, type of content (abstracts, full-text, book..)full text:   scholarly/scientific, blogs, newspapers, real time discussions (and video of it), mission doctrine/ policy   Granularity of knowledge element you are identifying   arbitrary: statements, single words, paragraphs   Relationships between knowledge elements you have identified   IBIS: relational types + node types   ScholOnto: relations + roles...   Cohere 39
  40. 40. Workshop Qs:   Type of annotation: automatic, manual, combination   manual annotation   partial automatic highlighting of text based on Simone Teufel's work on Argumentative Zoning   Size of corpus you have annotated so far   40 pages of blog debate   12 hours of video   distill 2 cm of policy docts into IBIS maps   several books in a literature   10-30 papers in a sample literature   30 articles on Iraq   5 days workshop discussions 40
  41. 41. Workshop Qs:   Data standards, outline of architecture of system built (if relevant)   Compendium: XML DTD; SQL   Cohere API: RDF; XML; JSON   TopicSpaces: XML Topic Map; RDF; OWL   Visualisations   Compendium/ClaiMapper manual maps   ClaiMaker/Cohere/TopicSpaces generated maps 41
  42. 42. Workshop Qs:   User studies: yes, focusing on interaction design and usage patterns in both field trials and lab studies   IUI 2005: evaluation of ClaimSpotter   IJHCS 2006: evaluation of ClaiMaker   WWW'07 CKC: evaluation of ClaimSpotter   IJRME 2008: evaluation of Compendium for mapping climate change arguments   Space Ex. Conf 2005: NASA Ames field trials   DIAC 2008: evaluation of Compendium for mapping planning discourse   HCI (under review): evaluation of Compendium mapping for hostage recovery 42

×