ICPW2007.Yetim

1,736 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ICPW2007.Yetim

  1. 1. DISCOURSIUM for Cooperative Examination of Information in the Context of the Pragmatic Web Fahri Yetim, Cologne, Germany Email: Yetim@acm.org
  2. 2. Outline  Theoretical Background  Examination Dialogue  Meta-Communication Concepts for Examining Information  From Theory to Practice: Modeling with Compendium  From Compendium to DISCOURSIUM  Critical Examination of Information Objects  Critical Examination of Arguments (or Maps)  Conclusions
  3. 3. Theoretical Background: Characteristics of Examination Dialogue  Dunne et al., 2005: “In such dialogues one party – the Questioner Q – elicits statements and opinions from another – the Responder R – with the aim of discovering R’s position on some topic, either to gain insight into R’s understanding and knowledge of the topic, or to expose an inconsistency in R’s position. ” [p. 1560].  Goals of examination dialogues (Walton, 2006)  Extraction  of information Testing of the reliability of information  Levels:  Understanding  and clarification of the meaning Critical discussion of the arguments (attributed to the authors) “It is the joining together of these two levels that represents the structure of examination and defines it as a type of dialogue” (Walton, 2006, p.775).
  4. 4. Architecture of Meta-Communication Meta-Communication Layer Discourse Level Conversation for Clarification level Communication Action Layer
  5. 5. The Meta-Communication Model (Yetim 2006) Discourse Level Moral Discourse Ethical Discourse Explicative Pragmatic Therapeutic Legal Theoretical Aesthetic Discourse Discourse Critique Discourse Discourse Critique Communicative Rationality Aesthetic Rationality Strategic Rationality Instrumental Rationality Normative Validity Empirical Validity Expressive Validity Relevance Semantic Clarity Syntactic Clarity Conversation for Physical Clarity Clarification Level
  6. 6. From Theory to Practice: Modeling with Compendium  Compendium (Buckingham Shum et al.) facilitates the capture and structuring of  Key Issues in Conversations,  Possible Responses to these Issues, and  Relevant Arguments  Used here for modeling the issues and discourses as templates for examination dialogues
  7. 7. Clarification issues and discourses as independent templates
  8. 8. Discourses with integrated clarification issues Explicative Discourse
  9. 9. Modeling the interconnection of two levels as a template
  10. 10. From Compendium to DISCOURSIUM  Design decision  Only the clarification level is used for both  examining information objects (texts) and  examining arguments at the discourse level  Argument maps are prepared by facilitators
  11. 11. 1. Participants examine a text
  12. 12. 2. Facilitators construct maps Rationale Compendium We need a multilingual version support oppose Current design of Our system should Providing a We should avoid our system support multilingual doing something supports a single multilingualism interface will be costly language costly supports rebuts Customers prefer to Unless we will buy multilingual recoup the costs products through new sales supports A system with multilingual features brings new sales Araucaria
  13. 13. 3. Facilitators submit the maps
  14. 14. 4. Participants examine the maps We need a multilingual version support oppose Current design of Our system should Providing a We should avoid our system support multilingual doing something supports a single multilingualism interface will be costly language costly supports rebuts Customers prefer to Unless we will buy multilingual recoup the costs products through new sales supports A system with multilingual features brings new sales
  15. 15. Examining Arguments by Argument Schemes (Walton, 1996 & 2006)  Argument schemes represent stereotypical kinds of reasoning  Examples (Walton 1996):  argument from expert opinion, argument from example, argument from analogy, etc.  Each scheme represents assumptions/premises of an argument and provides a set of critical questions to evaluate the assumptions.  Critical questions for “Appeal to Expert Opinion” (Walton, 2006)  1. Expertise Question: How credible is E as an expert source?  2. Field Question: Is E an expert in the field that A is in?  3. Opinion Question: What did E assert that implies A?  4. Trustworthiness Question: Is E personally reliable as a source?  5. Consistency Question: Is A consistent with what other experts assert?  6. Backup Evidence Question: Is E’s assertion based on evidence?
  16. 16. Examining Argument Maps (I) Categories of Critical Examples for questioning expert opinions Issues Physical Clarity “Is the expression of the expert perceivable/readable by all?” Syntactic Clarity “Is the expression of the expert syntactically clear?” Semantic Clarity “Is the meaning of what expert said comprehensible?“ Relevance “Is the assertion of the expert relevant to the domain?“ Expressive Validity “Is the expert known to be trustworthy?“ Empirical Validity “Is expert’s assertion based on evidence?“ Normative Validity “Is the expert really authoritative in the relevant field?“ Instrumental Rationality “Is the expert (known to be) well organized?” “Is the assertion covertly motivated by expert’s egocentric Strategic Rationality calculation of success?“ “Is the expression of the expert emotionally loaded/ Aesthetic Rationality aesthetically appealing?“
  17. 17. Examining Argument Maps (II) Categories of Critical Examples for questioning maps Issues Physical Clarity “Are texts/nodes/links on the map readable/visible?” Syntactic Clarity “Are expressions/links on the map syntactically correct?“ Semantic Clarity “Are texts/links on the map comprehensible?” Relevance “Are all relevant arguments included in the map?” “Do expressions on the map reflect the sincere intentions of their Expressive Validity owners?” Empirical Validity “Are all claims on the map really asserted?” “Do representations on the map violate any legal norm or cultural Normative Validity value (e.g., ownership, copyrights)?” Instrumental Rationality “Are boxes/nodes on the map efficiently organized?“ “Are some arguments strategically omitted/ misinterpreted/ wrongly Strategic Rationality placed?” Aesthetic Rationality “Do symbols/colors on the map look beautiful?”
  18. 18. Conclusion  Presented the realization of the meta- communication architecture in DISCOURSIUM  making some compromise in design was necessary  Argued that the set of clarification issues can be used for both  examining information objects (e.g., texts) and  examining arguments  Future Work

×