Advertisement

Visualizing Internetworked Argumentation

  • Simon Buckingham Shum
  • Victoria Uren
  • Gangmin Li
  • John Domingue
  • Enrico Motta
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

In this chapter, we outline a project which traces its source of inspiration back to the grand visions of Vannevar Bush (scholarly trails of linked concepts), Doug Engelbart (highly interactive intellectual tools, particularly for argumentation), and Ted Nelson (large scale internet publishing with recognised intellectual property). In essence, we are tackling the age-old question of how to organise distributed, collective knowledge. Specifically, we pose the following question as a foil:

In 2010, will scholarly knowledge still be published solely in prose, or can we imagine a complementary infrastructure that is “native” to the emerging semantic, collaborative web, enabling more effective dissemination and analysis of ideas?

Keywords

Concept Mapping Digital Library Resource Description Framework Target Concept Giant Component 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boland R. J. J., & Tenkasi R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckingham Shum S., MacLean A., Bellotti V., & Hammond N. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267–300. ai]Buckingham Shum S., Motta E., & Domingue J. (2000). ScholOnto: An ontologybased digital library server for research documents and discourse. International journal on Digital Libraries, 3(3), 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckingham Shum S., Uren V., Li G., Domingue J., Motta E., & Mancini C. (2002). Designing representational coherence into an infrastructure for collective Sensemaking. Invited contribution to: National Science Foundation Workshop on Infrastructures for Distributed Communities of Practice, San Diego, CA. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/docs/SBSDCP2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, H., & Ho, T. K. (2000). Evaluation of decision forests on text categorization. Proc. 7th SPIE Conference on Document Recognition and Retrieval, 191-199.Google Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (1994, October 10). Research fronts. Current Contents. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/citationanalysis/ll.htmlGoogle Scholar
  6. Gruber T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Knott A., & Mellish C. (1996). A feature-based account of relations signalled by sentence and clause connectives. Language and Speech, 39(2–3), 143–183.Google Scholar
  8. Knott A., & Sanders T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egghe L., & Rousseau R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics. Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (in press). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics.Google Scholar
  11. Erdos P. A. R. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian. Academy of Sciences, 5, 17–61.Google Scholar
  12. Li, G., Uren, V., Motta, E., Buckingham Shum, S., & Domingue, J. (2002). ClaiMaker: weaving a semantic web of research papers. 1 fInternational Semantic Web Conference, (Sardinia, June 9-12th, 2002). Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/docs/ClaiMaker-ISWC2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. Mancini, C., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2001). Cognitive coherence relations and hypertext: From cinematic patterns to scholarly discourse. Proc. ACM Hypertext 2001, (Aug. 14-18, Arhrus, Denmark), 165-174. New York:. ACM Press Retrieved from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/tr/papers/kmi-tr-110.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. Newman, S., & Marshall, C. (1991). Pushing Toulmin too fan Learning from an argument representation scheme (Technical Report SSL 92-45). Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  15. Pajek (2002). Program for Large Network Analysi. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/default.htmGoogle Scholar
  16. Reader W., & Hammond N. (1994). Computer-Based Tools to Support Learning from Hypertext: Concept Mapping Tools and Beyond. Computers in Education, 22, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rittel H. W. J., & Webber M. M. (1984). Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 135–144). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. (Published earlier as part of “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, 4,155-169,1973).Google Scholar
  18. Shipman F. M., & Marshall C. C. (1999). Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Vork, 8(4), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Toulmin S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Trigg R., & Weiser M. (1983). TEXTNET: A Network-Based Approach to Text Handling. ACM Transactions on Ofce Information Systems, 4(1), (pp 97–100)Google Scholar
  21. Watts D. J. (1999). Small Worlds. The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Buckingham Shum
    • 1
  • Victoria Uren
    • 1
  • Gangmin Li
    • 1
  • John Domingue
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteOpen UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations