Scholarly Discourse as Computable Structure

  • Simon Buckingham Shum
  • John Domingue
  • Enrico Motta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1903)


In their initial proposal for structural computing (SC), Nürnberg et al. [18] point to hypertext argumentation systems as an example of an application domain in which structure is of first-order importance. In this paper we summarise the goals and implementation of a knowledge based hypertext environment called ScholOnto (for Scholarly Ontologies), which aims to provide researchers with computational support in representing and analysing the structure of scholarly claims, argumentation and perspectives. A specialised web server will provide a medium for researchers to contest the significance of concepts and emergent structures. In so doing, participants construct an evolving structure that reflects a community’s understandings of its field, and which can support computational services for scholars. Using structural analyses of scholarly argumentation, we consider the connections with structural computing, and propose a number of requirements for generic SC environments.


Digital Library Structural Computing Scholarly Publishing Computer Support Cooperative Work Scholarly Discourse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, K. Software Engineering Requirements for Structural Computing. In First International Workshop on Structural Computing, Darmstadt (Feb. 21), 1999, Technical Report, Dept. Computer Science, Aarhus University, DK <>.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruns, G. Germ: A Metasystem for Browsing and Editing. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Technical Report STP-122-88, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckingham Shum, S. Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Moran, T.P. and Carroll, J.M., (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 1996, pp. 185–215.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckingham Shum, S. Negotiating the Construction and Reconstruction of Organisational Memories. Journal of Universal Computer Science (Special Issue on Information Technology for Knowledge Management), 3,8, 1997, pp. 899–928 <>.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buckingham Shum, S. and Hammond, N. Argumentation-Based Design Rationale: What Use at What Cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40,4, 1994, pp. 603–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. and Hammond, N. Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12,3, 1997, pp. 267–300 <>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckingham Shum, S., Motta, E., and Domingue, J. ScholOnto: An Ontology-Based Digital Library Server for Research Documents and Discourse. International Journal on Digital Libraries, Aug./Sept., 2000 <>.
  8. 8.
    Carter, L.M. Arguments in Hypertext: A Rhetorical Approach. In Proc. Hypertext 2000, San Antonio, TX, 2000, ACM: New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cognitive Science (Special Issue on Symbolic Reasoning and Situated Action), 17, 1993, pp. 1–133.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conklin, J. and Begeman, M.L. gIBIS: A Tool for All Reasons. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40, 1989, pp. 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation Resource Site. Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK
  12. 12.
    Domingue, J. and Motta, E. PlanetOnto: From News Publishing to Integrated Knowledge Management Support. IEEE Intelligent Systems (Special Issue on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Distribution over the Internet), in press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolb, D. Scholarly Hypertext: Self-Represented Complexity. In Proceedings of The Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext, Southampton, 1997, pp. 29–37.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, J. SIBYL: A Tool for Managing Group Design Rationale. In Proc. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, 1990, ACM Press: New York, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall, C.C. and Rogers, R.A. Two Years before the Mist: Experiences with Aquanet. In Proc. Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext, 1992, pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motta, E. Reusable Components for Knowledge Modelling. IOS Press: Amsterdam, NL, 1999.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motta, E., Buckingham Shum, S. and Domingue, J. Ontology-Driven Document Enrichment: Principles and Case Studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2000, in press <>.
  18. 18.
    Nürnberg, P.J., Leggett, J.J. and Schneider, E.R. As We Should Have Thought. In Proceedings of Hypertext’97: 8th ACM Conference on Hypertext, Southampton, 1997, pp. 96–101 <>.
  19. 19.
    Shipman, F.M. and Marshall, C.C. Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8,4, 1999, pp. 333–352.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trigg, R. and Weiser, M. TEXTNET: A Network-Based Approach to Text Handling. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4,1, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Buckingham Shum
    • 1
  • John Domingue
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations