Supporting Sensemaking by Modelling Discourse as Hypermedia Networks

  • 1,194 views
Uploaded on

10 July 2009: Presentation to W3C "Semantic Web for Health Care and Life Sciences" Interest Group: "Scientific Discourse" task group: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC

10 July 2009: Presentation to W3C "Semantic Web for Health Care and Life Sciences" Interest Group: "Scientific Discourse" task group: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,194
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

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. W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Scientific Discourse task group http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC Supporting Sensemaking by Modelling Discourse as Hypermedia Networks Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University Milton Keynes, UK http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/scholonto http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/hyperdiscourse 1
  • 2. Acknowledgements 2
  • 3. Semantic scholarly publishing: our first statement of the challenge (1999) http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/techreport/kmi-99-07
  • 4. 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? 4
  • 5. modelling schemes: IBIS 5
  • 6. Rittel’s IBIS: Issue-Based Information System 6
  • 7. 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. 7 Paech. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. http://oro.open.ac.uk/3032
  • 8. IBIS mapping of Iraq debate Buckingham Shum, S., and A. Okada. 2008. Knowledge cartography for controversies: The Iraq debate. In Knowledge cartography: 8 Software tools and mapping techniques, ed. A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, and T. Sherborne, 249–66. London: Springer.
  • 9. Mapping a nuclear power debate on a blog
  • 10. Mapping a nuclear power debate on a blog
  • 11. Mapping a nuclear power debate on a blog
  • 12. Latest developments   IBIS RDF Schema (Danny Ayers) http://www.schemaweb.info/webservices/rest/GetRDFByID.aspx?id=4   Work now under way to integrate the leading IBIS deliberation tools: see the ESSENCE project http://events.kmi.open.ac.uk/essence/tools 12
  • 13. modelling schemes: ScholOnto 13
  • 14. Scientific document annotation model 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” 14
  • 15. 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. 15 International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171. [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/6441]
  • 16. polarity source type comparativeness Cognitive Coherence Relations Mancini, C. and Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2006). Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: A Semiotic and Cognitive Framework. 16 International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, (11), pp.1154-1171. [PrePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/6441]
  • 17. Semantic Web formats   ScholOnto RDF Schema: http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/scholonto/resources/Scholonto2.rdfs   Cohere API serves: RDF, XML, JSON http://cohere.open.ac.uk/help/code-doc/Cohere-API/_apilib.php.html   Cohere accepts RDF uploads: http://cohere.open.ac.uk/help/rdf.php 17
  • 18. discourse annotation and search tools 18
  • 19. 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 19 Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5):420–445, 2006
  • 20. 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 20 of Structured Knowledge, 16th Int. World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada; 8-12 May 2007.
  • 21. 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] 21
  • 22. 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] 22
  • 23. “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, (2006). Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation 23 and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5):420–445. http://oro.open.ac.uk/2954
  • 24. “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. http://oro.open.ac.uk/6463 24
  • 25. Latest developments Neil Benn’s Doctoral Dissertation, KMi: “Modelling Scholarly Debate: Conceptual Foundations for Knowledge Domain Analysis Technology” (under revision) http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2009/07/modelling-scholarly-debate-neil-benn-phd Benn, N., Buckingham Shum, S. Domingue, J. and Mancini, C. (2008). Ontological Foundations for Scholarly Debate Mapping Technology. 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA ‘08), 28-30 May, 2008, Toulouse, France. IOS Press. http://oro.open.ac.uk/11939 Embedding discourse relationships into SocialLearn, a social media platform for learning and sensemaking: www.open.ac.uk/sociallearn and in Open Learning Network, a social media platform for building the evidence base in an emerging field: www.olnet.org 25
  • 26. http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/hyperdiscourse Compendium Institute 26