Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                                                                  www...
Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                     www.deri.ie         ...
Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                     www.deri.ie         ...
Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                     www.deri.ie         ...
Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                     www.deri.ie         ...
Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                                       ww...
Identifying arguments is hard.Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                        www.deri.ie    ...
7,000 hours[Metzinger 1999]
ApproachesDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                       www.deri.ie           User support ...
User SupportDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                         www.deri.ie                     ...
Example problemsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                             www.deri.ie           I...
Represent Twitter complaints.Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                         www.deri.ie    ...
Make sense of deletion discussions        Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes                ...
Decision Factors for Deleting Articles in Wikipedia           Factor             Example (used to justify `keep)          ...
Alternative Interfaces for Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Some Proposals Using Decision Factors. [Demo]”Jodi Schneider...
Find argumentation in reviewsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                      www.deri.ie       ...
Annotate possible arguments                  Highlight terms:                               ,    Semi-Automated Argumentat...
Find arguments by searching annotations            Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text                 Jodi Schneider ...
Don’t need flash  Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text       Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner,          19             SWAIE...
Flash badly placed   Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text         Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner                          ...
Simple Reasoning PatternDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                             ...
Argumentation SchemeDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                                 ...
Variables as Targets forDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                        Information Extractio...
Logical formalismsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                               www.deri.ie        ...
Formal RepresentationsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                         www.deri.ie          ...
John Danaher, http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.ie/2010/03/argumentation-schemes-part-1.html
Search annotations to fill slots in argumentation                  scheme                 Identifying Consumers Arguments ...
Argumentation FrameworksDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                          www.deri.ie        ...
Transform Debates intoDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                        Argument Frameworks    ...
Calculate best optionsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                        (non-contradictory opin...
Assumption-based,Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                        Admissible Argumentation    ...
From a Facebook thread to logicDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                        www.deri.ie   ...
   Comment       “This is what my kitchen tap used to look like…”   Opinion       “Separate taps are common in GB”   ...
Map the conversationDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                        www.deri....
objectsTo linkDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                www.deri.ie            ...
Logical frameworkDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                         www.deri.ie...
Logical frameworkDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                              www.deri.ie          ...
TheoriesDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                     www.deri.ie             Popularity isn’...
Numbers aren’t everythingDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                            ...
What’s the Support?Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                                                  ...
Discussion purpose:Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                        Walton & Krabbe’s dialogue...
Dimensions of (Argumentative)Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                        Expression      ...
AcknowledgmentsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                www.deri.ie          ...
Thanks!Digital Enterprise Research Institute                                    www.deri.ie        Questions?        Jodi ...
45     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heath_Totten
ArgumentsDigital Enterprise Research Institute                                                 www.deri.ie                ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Argumentative discussions on the web IFIP 2012-10-13

825 views

Published on

Talk to the IFIP meeting www.ifip.or.at/bulletin/bulltcs/tc12_aim.htm#wg127

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
825
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/245.full.pdf
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/04_04_12_ukconsultation.pdf
  • argument map describing the debate on whether computers think took 7,000 hours to complete" (Metzinger, 1999).Metzinger, T. (1999). Teaching philosophy with argumentation maps review of can computers think? the debate by Robert E. Horn. PSYCHE, 5.(as quoted by Clare Llewellyn’s thesis proposal)Map source:http://www.macrovu.com/CCTWeb/CCT1/CCTMap1Emotions.html====Other Examples:FlorisBex, 3 weeks to construct argument map from 1 hour conversationChris Reed’s group, Argument mapping, 8 people for real-time mapping of 45 minute radio broadcastOverview: http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/?page_id=645Argument map: http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/AIFdb/argview/789BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze 2012-07-18 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ks9zlAnalysis Wall,YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVDgH-g8_gU
  • From http://www.sendareview.com/The Web is full of opinions & commentary.A lot of it disagrees.How do we learn from other people, when they disagree?
  • Collaborative, distributed decision-makingIndividual sense-making informed by many opinionsIndividual decision-making informed by many opinions
  • Mainly bright colours in good daylight; flash badly placed
  • Isn’t it funny that people tweet about this
  • For context, see my longer slidedeck from a reading group presentation about their paper:http://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/using-controlled-natural-language-and-first-order-logic-to-improve-e-consultation-discussion-forumsreadinggrouptalkThey don’t say how they extracted these – but they say Someone makes statement (1)Someone else gives (4) as a reason/premise for (1)Someone else gives (3) as an additional reason for (1)(2) Is a counterproposal with a range of supporting reasons===Icons:http://findicons.com/icon/27954/girl_5?id=27964#http://findicons.com/icon/27930/boy_8?id=27939#http://findicons.com/icon/27955/girl_4?id=27965#
  • For context, see my longer slidedeck from a reading group presentation about their paper:http://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/using-controlled-natural-language-and-first-order-logic-to-improve-e-consultation-discussion-forumsreadinggrouptalkMaximal consistent sets
  • Via http://www.springerlink.com/content/v7030p6l23l12xl4/fulltext.pdfSeeBondarenko, A., Toni, F., Kowalski, R.A.: An assumption-based framework fornon-monotonic reasoning. In: Pereira, L.M., Nerode, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning(LPNMR 1993), pp. 171–189. MIT Press, Lisbon (1993)
  • For more context, see their paper or my reading group slideshttp://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/turning-social-disputes-into-knowledge-representations-deri-reading-group-2012-0328
  • For more context, see their paper or my reading group slideshttp://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/turning-social-disputes-into-knowledge-representations-deri-reading-group-2012-0328
  • For more context, see their paper or my reading group slideshttp://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/turning-social-disputes-into-knowledge-representations-deri-reading-group-2012-0328
  • For more context, see their paper or my reading group slideshttp://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/turning-social-disputes-into-knowledge-representations-deri-reading-group-2012-0328
  • For more context, see their paper or my reading group slideshttp://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/turning-social-disputes-into-knowledge-representations-deri-reading-group-2012-0328
  • For more context, see their paper or my reading group slideshttp://www.slideshare.net/jodischneider/turning-social-disputes-into-knowledge-representations-deri-reading-group-2012-0328
  • . The issue is whether it is the right product for the buyer, which is a matter not only of the pros and cons, but also of the explanations and counterarguments given. In our view, current approaches detect problems, but obscure the chains of reasoning about them.
  • . The issue is whether it is the right product for the buyer, which is a matter not only of the pros and cons, but also of the explanations and counterarguments given. In our view, current approaches detect problems, but obscure the chains of reasoning about them.
  • 4 Dimensions of ExpressionTo extract well-formed knowledge bases of argument, we must first chart out the various dimensions of social media, to point the way towards the aspects that argumentation reconstruction will need to consider, so that we later can isolate these aspects.Social media encompasses numerous genres, each with their own conversational styles, which affect what sort of rhetoric and arguments may be made. One key feature is the extent to which a medium is used for broadcasts (e.g. monologues) versus conversations (e.g. dialogues), and in each genre, a prototypical message or messages could be described, but these vary across genres due to social conventions and technical constraints. De Moor and Efimova compared rhetorical and argumentative aspects[4] of listservs and blogs, identifying features such as the likelihood that messages receive responses, and whether spaces are owned communities or by a single individual, and the timeline for replies [5]. Important message characteristics include the typical and allowable message length (e.g. space limitations on microblogs) and whether messages may be continually refined by a group (such as in StackOverflow).Metadata associated with a post (such as poster, timestamp, and subject line for listservs) and additional structure (such as pingbacks and links for blogs) can also be used for argumentation. For example, a user’s most recent post is generally taken to identify their current view, while relationships between messages can indicate a shared topic, and may be associated with agreement or disagreement.Users are different, and properties of users are factors that contribute not only to substance of the user’s comment, but as well to how they react to the comments of others. These include demographic information such as the user’s age, gender, location, education, and so on. In a specific domain, additional user expectations or constraints could also be added. Different users are persuaded by different kinds of information. Therefore, to solve peoples’ problems, based on knowledge bases, when dealing with inconsistency, understanding the purposes and goals that people have would be useful.Therefore, the goals of a particular dialogue also matter. These have been considered in argumentation theory: Walton & Krabbe have categorized dialogue types based on the initial situation, participant’s goal, and the goal of the dialogue [11]. The types they distinguish are inquiry, discovery, information seeking, deliberation, persuasion, negotiation and eristic. These are abstractions–any single conversation moves through various dialogue types. For example, a deliberation may be paused in order to delve into information seeking, then resumed once the needed information has been obtained.Higher level context would also be useful: different amounts of certainty are needed for different purposes. Some of that is inherent in a task: Reasoning about what kind of medical treatment to seek for a long-term illness, based on PatientsLikeMe, requires more certainty than deciding what to buy based on product reviews.Informal language is very typically found in social media. Generic language processing issues, with misspellings and abbreviations, slang, language mixing emoticons, and unusual use of punctuation, must be resolved in order to enable text mining (and subsequently argumentation mining) on informal language. Indirect forms of speech, such as sarcasm, irony, and innuendo, are also common. A step-by-step approach, focusing first on what can be handled, is necessary.Another aspect of the informality is that much information is left implicit. Therefore, inferring from context is essential. Elliptical statements require us to infer common world knowledge, and connecting to existing knowledge bases will be needed.We apply sentiment techniques to provide candidates for argumentation mining and especially to identify textual markers of subjectivity and objectivity. The arguments that are made about or against purported facts have a different form from the arguments that are made about opinions. Arguments about objective statements provide the reasons for believing a purported fact or how certain it is. Subjective arguments might indicate, for instance, which users would benefit from a service or product (those similar to the poster). Another area where subjective arguments may appear is discussions of the trust and credibility about the people making the arguments.
  • Adding funding/collaborators slide.
  • Delete the article]...hasn't played since 2008. His 66-73 record is far from stellar and, in my opinion, does not merit an article.
  • Argumentative discussions on the web IFIP 2012-10-13

    1. 1. Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Argumentative Discussions on the Web Jodi Schneider Digital Enterprise Research Institute, NUI Galway Social Networking Semantics and Collective Intelligence working group, International Federation for Information Processing. Galway, Ireland Saturday 13th October 2012 Copyright 2011 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved. Enabling Networked Knowledge 1
    2. 2. Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    3. 3. Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    4. 4. Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    5. 5. Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    6. 6. Argumentation is everywhere!Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie London Argumentation ForumEnabling April 20, Networked Knowledge 2012
    7. 7. Identifying arguments is hard.Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    8. 8. 7,000 hours[Metzinger 1999]
    9. 9. ApproachesDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  User support  Logical formalisms  Theoretical approaches Enabling Networked Knowledge 9
    10. 10. User SupportDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    11. 11. Example problemsDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Issue a press release responding to Tweet complaints  Decide whether to delete a Wikipedia article  Based on reviews, determine controversial product features that customers both like & dislike. Enabling Networked Knowledge 11
    12. 12. Represent Twitter complaints.Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Jodi Schneider Enabling Networked Knowledge 12
    13. 13. Make sense of deletion discussions Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant & Stefan Decker WikiSym 2012
    14. 14. Decision Factors for Deleting Articles in Wikipedia Factor Example (used to justify `keep) Notability Anyone covered by another encyclopedic reference is considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources Basic information about this album at a minimum is certainly verifiable, its a major label release, and a highly notable band. Maintenance …this article is savable but at its current state, needs a lot of improvement. Bias It is by no means spam (it does not promote the products). Other Im advocating a blanket "hangon" for all articles on newly- drafted players Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant & Stefan Decker WikiSym 2012
    15. 15. Alternative Interfaces for Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Some Proposals Using Decision Factors. [Demo]”Jodi Schneider and Krystian SampWikiSym2012
    16. 16. Find argumentation in reviewsDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Enabling Networked Knowledge
    17. 17. Annotate possible arguments Highlight terms: , Semi-Automated Argumentative Analysis of Online Product Reviews Adam Wyner, Jodi Schneider, Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon COMMA 2012
    18. 18. Find arguments by searching annotations Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012
    19. 19. Don’t need flash Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner, 19 SWAIE at EKAW 2012
    20. 20. Flash badly placed Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner 20 SWAIE at EKAW 2012
    21. 21. Simple Reasoning PatternDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Premises:  The Canon SX220 has good video quality.  Good video quality promotes image quality for casual photographers. Conclusion:  Casual photographers should buy the Canon SX220. Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 Enabling Networked Knowledge 21
    22. 22. Argumentation SchemeDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Premises:  The <camera> has <feature>.  <feature> promotes <user value> for <user class>. Conclusion:  <user class> should <e-commerce action> the <camera>. <e-commerce action>: buy, not buy, sell, return, … Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 Enabling Networked Knowledge 22
    23. 23. Variables as Targets forDigital Enterprise Research Institute Information Extraction www.deri.ie <camera> <property> <user value> <user type> <e-commerce action> Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 Enabling Networked Knowledge 23
    24. 24. Logical formalismsDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Argumentation Schemes  Argument Frameworks  Assumption-based, Admissible Argumentation (ABBA) Enabling Networked Knowledge
    25. 25. Formal RepresentationsDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Argumentation Schemes  Appeal to Expert Opinion  Appeal to Popular Opinion  From Analogy  Slippery Slope  ....  Indicate Relevant “Critical Questions” for a discussion  Patterns for Information Extraction (Amazon examples - SWAIE 2012) Enabling Networked Knowledge
    26. 26. John Danaher, http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.ie/2010/03/argumentation-schemes-part-1.html
    27. 27. Search annotations to fill slots in argumentation scheme Identifying Consumers Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider & Adam Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012
    28. 28. Argumentation FrameworksDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Example  Variety of Semantics – can be used to choose best options Dung 1995 Enabling Networked Knowledge
    29. 29. Transform Debates intoDigital Enterprise Research Institute Argument Frameworks www.deri.ie (1) Households should pay tax for their garbage. (4) (1) Paying tax for garbage increases recycling, so households should pay. Arrow: premise (3) (1) Recycling more is good, so people should Wyner, van Engers, & Bahreini pay tax for their garbage. From Policy-making Statements to First-order Logic. EGOV 2010 29 Enabling Networked Knowledge
    30. 30. Calculate best optionsDigital Enterprise Research Institute (non-contradictory opinions) www.deri.ie Wyner, van Engers, & Bahreini. From Policy-making Statements to First-order Logic. EGOV 2010 Enabling Networked Knowledge 30
    31. 31. Assumption-based,Digital Enterprise Research Institute Admissible Argumentation www.deri.ie  Deductive system with inference rules  Assumptions  “Backward argument” – Argument Tree Reasoning on the Web with Assumption-Based Argumentation Francesca Toni Reasoning Web Summer School Enabling Networked Knowledge
    32. 32. From a Facebook thread to logicDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Toni & Torroni Bottom-Up Argumentation TAFFA 2011 Enabling Networked Knowledge
    33. 33.  Comment  “This is what my kitchen tap used to look like…” Opinion  “Separate taps are common in GB” Links  “This is what my kitchen tap used to look like…” supports “Separate taps are common in GB” Toni & Torroni Bottom-Up Argumentation TAFFA 2011
    34. 34. Map the conversationDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Toni & Torroni Bottom-Up Argumentation TAFFA 2011 Enabling Networked Knowledge
    35. 35. objectsTo linkDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Links  “Separate taps are inconvenient because they freeze/ burn hands” objectsTo “Separate taps are not inconvenient as basin solves temperature problem” Toni & Torroni Bottom-Up Argumentation TAFFA 2011 Enabling Networked Knowledge
    36. 36. Logical frameworkDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Assumption-Based Argumentation  basedOn(o3) ← c2, l_3_2 Toni & Torroni Bottom-Up Argumentation TAFFA 2011 Enabling Networked Knowledge 36
    37. 37. Logical frameworkDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Assumption-Based Argumentation  alink(l_4_17,o4,o17) T o n i & T o r Enabling Networked Knowledge r 37 o
    38. 38. TheoriesDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Popularity isn’t everything  Walton & Krabbe’s Dialogue Types  Dimensions of Argumentative Expression Enabling Networked Knowledge
    39. 39. Numbers aren’t everythingDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie overwhelming numbers of people may not matter Dimensions of Argumentation in Social Media Jodi Schneider, Brian Davis, and Adam Wyner EKAW 2012 Photograph DAVID GILES/PA NEWS WIRE/AP PHOTO - February 7, 2011 New Yorker via http://www.vincentskeltis.com/blog/2011/2/7/crowd-crush.html Enabling Networked Knowledge
    40. 40. What’s the Support?Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie The overall popularity of an opinion is not as important as the reasons supporting it Dimensions of Argumentation in Social Media Jodi Schneider, Brian Davis, and Adam Wyner EKAW 2012 Image: http://www.nickmilton.com/2012/03/when-people-trust-crowds.html Enabling Networked Knowledge
    41. 41. Discussion purpose:Digital Enterprise Research Institute Walton & Krabbe’s dialogue types www.deri.ie Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning Walton & Krabbe 1995 Enabling Networked Knowledge 41
    42. 42. Dimensions of (Argumentative)Digital Enterprise Research Institute Expression www.deri.ie  Genre  Metadata  Properties of users  Goals of a particular dialogue  Context  Informal language  Implicit info  Sentiment techniques  Subjectivity and objectivity Dimensions of Argumentation in Social Media Jodi Schneider, Brian Davis, and Adam Wyner EKAW 2012 Enabling Networked Knowledge
    43. 43. AcknowledgmentsDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie  Thanks to our collaborators!  Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner (Liverpool)  DERI Social Software Unit & others  Rhetorical Structure Taskforce, W3C Health Care/Life Sciences  My Funding  Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2)  Short-term scientific mission (STSM 1868) from the COST Action ICO801 on Agreement Technologies  SFI Short Term Travel Fellowship Enabling Networked Knowledge 43
    44. 44. Thanks!Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Questions? Jodi Schneider jodi.schneider@deri.org @jschneider Enabling Networked Knowledge
    45. 45. 45 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heath_Totten
    46. 46. ArgumentsDigital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Claim: does not merit an article Justification: hasn’t played since 2008, mediocre record Enabling Networked Knowledge 46

    ×