Argumentation 3.0How Semantic Web technologies can improve argumentation modeling in Web 2.0 environments<br />Jodi Schnei...
World Wide Argument Web (WWAW)<br />2<br />What if instead of following mailing lists, blogs, online magazines, scientific...
Parts of the WWAW exist<br />3<br />An interchange format<br />Argument Interchange Format<br />Argument schemes<br />e.g....
Argument blogging  (AIF+DGDL [22])<br />4<br />
Generate argument maps from conversations (Arvina, MAgtALO)<br />5<br />Source: Mark Snaith, ODET 2010<br />
What’s missing from the WWAW?<br />Users<br />Collation & querying across the Web<br /><ul><li>ArgDF?</li></ul>Trust & cre...
Social Semantic Web<br />7<br />
Social Semantic Web can bring…<br />Users (Social Web)<br />Facebook: 500 million active users, 22 billion minutes/dayhttp...
Argumentation on today’s Social Web<br />Numerous sites with different ‘genres’:<br />Forums, Blogs, Wikis, Microblogging,...
Arguments in Web 2.0 & Social Web: Wikis – Wikipedia article discussion<br />10<br /><ul><li>Wiki pages
Can edit others’ words
Must add by hand:
Headings
Indentation
Signature macro ~~~~
Emphasize topic
Persistent ‘archives’ in view</li></li></ul><li>Arguments in Web 2.0 & Social Web: Microblogs<br />11<br /><ul><li>Brief m...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Argumentation 3.0 - COMMA2010

1,124 views

Published on

Presentation about argumentation on the Social Semantic Web, for Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, Tudor Groza, John G. Breslin, “Argumentation 3.0: how Semantic Web technologies can improve argumentation modeling in Web 2.0 environments” In COMMA 2010, Desenzano del Garda, Italy, September 8-10, 2010. http://jodischneider.com/pubs/comma2010.pdf

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
1,124
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://www.comma-conf.org/
  • Find out… when microbloggers express approval of or provide brief counterpoints to blog posts, or where forums and listservs point to and extend wiki Talk page disputes
  • Simplifies. But would need adoption by major hosts. “Argument Blogging needs mainly evangelism and integration with hosted systems to help the World Wide Argument Web [16] emerge, and a federated network in order to make it scalable and resistant to disruption.”
  • Adoption by large sitesUse by individuals in large numbersargumentation ecosystem for social media, aligning Semantic Web models for argumentation with those for social media, AIF (alone) doesn’t solve this (yet)Social Websites may not be in RDFAIF expects argument schemesSocial Semantic Web schemes (FOAF, SIOC) mainly model the overall structure.
  • Facebookargumentation ecosystem for social media, aligning Semantic Web models for argumentation with those for social media, AIF (alone) doesn’t solve this (yet)Social Websites may not be in RDFAIF expects argument schemesSocial Semantic Web schemes (FOAF, SIOC) mainly model the overall structure.
  • How long does a comment remain visible? – indefinitely (depends on bot archiving, human archiving)How easy is it to quote? – not directly supportedHow is agreement expressed? – someone makes an edit, or states that they agreeArguments happen across the Social Web.The affordances and interaction patterns of each site affect which types of conversations are well-supported—and thus what kind and how much argumentation occurs.
  • How long does a comment remain visible? Very brieflyHow easy is it to quote? Depends somewhat on message lengthHow is agreement expressed? RT *may* indicate agreement, depending on comments added. @replies can be used to say “good job” or something similarArguments happen across the Social Web.The affordances and interaction patterns of each site affect which types of conversations are well-supported—and thus what kind and how much argumentation occurs.
  • depending on the community, use-case, etc.Heavily tested, scaled implementations?
  • Sindice SIOC widget:Shows posts, comments, and topics, from across the Web from sites which use the SIOC ontology.http://www.johnbreslin.com/taxonomy/term/1606 “if you look at the post author or click into any comments list, each user now has a speech bubble beside the username. Clicking on this bubble will show you posts, comments and topics created by that user across the &quot;SIOC-o-sphere&quot;.argumentation ecosystem for social media, aligning Semantic Web models for argumentation with those for social media, AIF (alone) doesn’t solve this (yet)Social Websites may not be in RDFAIF expects argument schemesSocial Semantic Web schemes (FOAF, SIOC) mainly model the overall structure.
  • argumentation ecosystem for social media, aligning Semantic Web models for argumentation with those for social media, AIF (alone) doesn’t solve this (yet)Social Websites may not be in RDFAIF expects argument schemesSocial Semantic Web schemes (FOAF, SIOC) mainly model the overall structure.
  • Adoption by large sitesUse by individuals in large numbersargumentation ecosystem for social media, aligning Semantic Web models for argumentation with those for social media, AIF (alone) doesn’t solve this (yet)Social Websites may not be in RDFAIF expects argument schemesSocial Semantic Web schemes (FOAF, SIOC) mainly model the overall structure.
  • Argumentation 3.0 - COMMA2010

    1. 1. Argumentation 3.0How Semantic Web technologies can improve argumentation modeling in Web 2.0 environments<br />Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, Tudor Groza, John G. Breslin<br />COMMA 20102010-09-10<br />Desenzano del Garda, Italy<br />
    2. 2. World Wide Argument Web (WWAW)<br />2<br />What if instead of following mailing lists, blogs, online magazines, scientific journals…<br />You could follow ARGUMENTS?<br />Who is arguing about this topic? Or product? Or idea?<br />Is their view positive or negative?<br />Are their ideas credible? <br />Are they trustworthy? Do people I trust, trust them?<br />What arguments are they making?<br />
    3. 3. Parts of the WWAW exist<br />3<br />An interchange format<br />Argument Interchange Format<br />Argument schemes<br />e.g. Walton<br />Argument-related ontologies<br />IBIS, ScholOnto, SWAN/SIOC, …<br />Prototype interfaces<br />Argument blogging<br />Arvina, MAgtALO<br />
    4. 4. Argument blogging (AIF+DGDL [22])<br />4<br />
    5. 5. Generate argument maps from conversations (Arvina, MAgtALO)<br />5<br />Source: Mark Snaith, ODET 2010<br />
    6. 6. What’s missing from the WWAW?<br />Users<br />Collation & querying across the Web<br /><ul><li>ArgDF?</li></ul>Trust & credibility layer<br />6<br />
    7. 7. Social Semantic Web<br />7<br />
    8. 8. Social Semantic Web can bring…<br />Users (Social Web)<br />Facebook: 500 million active users, 22 billion minutes/dayhttp://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics<br />LinkedIn: 75 million usershttp://press.linkedin.com/<br />Collation & querying across the Web (Semantic Web)<br /><ul><li>based on semantics with search engines like Sindice</li></ul>Trust & credibility layer (Social Semantic research)<br />Restricting to the friends or colleagues you trust<br />… Or even, Ted for golf, and Roberto for restaurant tips!<br />8<br />
    9. 9. Argumentation on today’s Social Web<br />Numerous sites with different ‘genres’:<br />Forums, Blogs, Wikis, Microblogging, …<br />Affordances like:<br />How long does a comment remain visible?<br />How easy is it to quote?<br />How is agreement expressed?<br />9<br />
    10. 10. Arguments in Web 2.0 & Social Web: Wikis – Wikipedia article discussion<br />10<br /><ul><li>Wiki pages
    11. 11. Can edit others’ words
    12. 12. Must add by hand:
    13. 13. Headings
    14. 14. Indentation
    15. 15. Signature macro ~~~~
    16. 16. Emphasize topic
    17. 17. Persistent ‘archives’ in view</li></li></ul><li>Arguments in Web 2.0 & Social Web: Microblogs<br />11<br /><ul><li>Brief messages
    18. 18. URI’shttp://twitter.com/...
    19. 19. Stream-based
    20. 20. Interconnected
    21. 21. Replies
    22. 22. Retweets
    23. 23. Hashtags</li></li></ul><li>What’s missing for large sites?<br />Is ‘agree’/ ‘disagree’ enough?<br />If there’s more complexity, will my users adopt it?<br />What kind of interfaces make this palatable + easy?<br />Which ontology should I use?<br />What features are important? Depends on a given community, type of environment<br />“Show me the data”<br />chicken & egg problem<br />12<br />
    24. 24. What’s missing for individual users?<br />To get users to comment:<br />Make it easy-to-use<br />Need enough space for the message length<br />Context matters:<br />Am I looking at the most recent message?<br />Who wrote the message I’m replying to?<br />13<br />
    25. 25. Collating blog comments<br />Collation & querying across the Web<br />14<br />Sindice SIOC plugin for WordPress blogs: did a commenter post on other websites?<br />
    26. 26. Social Semantic Web research area<br />Trust & credibility layer<br />Golbeck, Computing with Social Trust, Springer 2008<br />Hartig, Querying Trust in RDF Data with tSPARQL, ESWC 2009<br />15<br />http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake.svg<br />
    27. 27. WWAW + Social Semantic Web<br />Users<br />Collation & querying across the Web<br />Trust & credibility layer<br />16<br />
    28. 28. Thank you!<br />Contact: <br />jodi.schneider@deri.org<br />Twitter: @jschneider<br />http://jodischneider.com/<br />17<br />

    ×