Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation

1
Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation
Proc. 2nd International Conference on
Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse, May
2008
Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media
InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton Keynes,
UK http//kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs
2
Overview

• The Web 2.0 phenomenon
• Key aspects for COMMA end-user tools
• Web argumentation state of the art
• Cohere
• Limitations and future work

3
The dizzy world of Web 2.0
http//hello.eboy.com/eboy/wp-content/uploads/shop
/EBY_FooBar_35t.png
4
Defining Web 2.0
5
Web 2.0 user experiencesimple, engaging
multimedia
6
Web 2.0 user experiencesimple, engaging
multimedia
Open applications that serve one activity very
well
http//37signals.com
7
Web 2.0 user experiencesimple, engaging
multimedia
Open applications that serve one activity very
well
http//rememberthemilk.com
8
Web 2.0 social networks, media sharing, and mass
collaboration
9
Web 2.0 social networks, media sharing, and mass
collaboration
10
Web 2.0 information structuringemergent, not
predefined, semantics
11
Web 2.0 information structuringemergent, not
predefined, semantics

• Tagclouds simple visualization of keywords by
  popularity, reflecting emergent community
  folksonomy

12
Web 2.0 information structuringemergent, not
predefined, semantics

• Wikis designed to enable a community to add
  structure as and when they need, not be locked
  into a set of predefined forms

13
Web 2.0 interoperability, mashups, embedded
content
14
Web 2.0 interoperability, mashups, embedded
content
15
The bottom line

• The bar has been raised for the Web user and
  developer experience
• Are COMMA tools up to the challenge?

16
Web-based Argumentation state of the art

• Debatepedia a wiki structured into arguments
  for and against a question
• http//wiki.idebate.org

17
Web-based Argumentation state of the art

• TruthMapping distinguishes unsupported premises
  from evidenced claims
• http//truthmapping.com

18
Web-based Argumentation state of the art

• DebateGraph an IBIS-based tool providing a
  structured outline view
• http//debategraph.net

19
Web-based Argumentation state of the art

• CoPe_it! IBIS-based tool providing threads, maps
  and decision-support
• http//copeit.cti.gr/site

20
Web-based Argumentation state of the art

• ClaiMaker/ClaimFinder semantic annotation and
  search of scholarly literature
• http//kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto

21
Web-based Argumentation state of the art

• ArgDF first platform implementing AIF in RDF
• http//argdf.org

22
Conclusion there are currently no Web 2.0
argumentation tools

• There are no tools satisfying all of the
  following criteria
• Provide an engaging, walk up and use interface
• Make it easy to link to, and embed argumentation
  in other websites (like a YouTube movie)
• Enable end-user definition of the semantics
• Promote networking between participants
• Provide an open architecture with API services

23
Cohere is introduced not as an argumentation
tool, but as a tool for making meaningful
connections between ideas. Argumentation is just
one possible application that some users may want
to pursue
24
Cohere homepage people ideas connections
25
Cohere creating a new Idea for Googles Knol,
linked to a website
26
Cohere embedding an Idea or Map in another
website (a blog post)
27
Cohere raising issues about Googles Knol Idea
28
Cohere from tag clouds to idea webs
29
Ideas may be assigned a Role in the context of a
given connection

• your assumption may be my problem
• my claim may be your evidence
• The default Idea role can be specialized to one
  of the preset examples or user-defined

30
Cohere extensible connection language doesnt
lock users into one ontology, except to classify
connections as positive, neutral or negative to
assist subsequent filtering
31
Expanding the neutral and negative connection
menus default connection labels are listed
firstuser-defined connections can be appended
32
Cohere all incoming and outgoing links from a
focal Idea
33
Cohere Argument from Expert Opinion with
Critical Questions (from Walton Reed)
34
Cohere semantically filtering a focal Idea by
contrasting connections
35
Cohere semantically filtering a focal Idea by
contrasting connections
36
Cohere a mashup visualization merging different
connections around a common Idea
37
Cohere usage statistics

• We are logging a range of statistics yet to be
  analysed, e.g.

Approx 1-3 new users/day register, consistent for
last few months
38
Cohere usage statistics(cont/d)
39
Limitations, and future work

• Interface not responsive on all platforms
  (Windows is currently best) or with large
  datasets
• moving from Java to Flash visualizations
• re-architecting the interface to be more
  efficient
• Usability trials have shown weaknesses
• now being tackled in a new version of the user
  interface
• Much requested user-groups management added to
  strengthen the social/collaboration dimension
• Cohere not currently an open platform
• v2 has a RESTful services API enabling data
  read/write through URLs

40
Cohere v1 (the current public release) is a
closed application
Database(MySQL)
41
Cohere v2 is an open data platform API
providing REST services
User Interface
API (REST services)
Application (PHP)
Database(MySQL)
42
Limitations, and future work (cont/d)

• RDF import/export now working ( basic AIF)
• RSS feeds to be added
• New mashup possibilities
• arguments merged with GIS (GoogleMaps)
• or timelines (Simile), etc
• An open platform for COMMA researchers?
• add your own user interfaces and reasoning
  services

43
Thank You!Resources

• Cohere cohereweb.net
• Cohere blog kmi.open.ac.uk/technologies/cohere
• Hypermedia Discourse research kmi.open.ac.uk/pro
  jects/hyperdiscourse