Capturing Rhetoric and Argumentation Aspects within Scientific Publications

  • Tudor Groza
  • Siegfried Handschuh
  • Stefan Decker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6720)


Dissemination can be seen as a communication process between scientists, in which they expose and support their findings, while discussing claims stated in related scientific publications. Often this discourse structure is hidden in the semantics expressed by the publication’s content and thus hard to discover by the reader.

Externalization, the process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit concepts, holds the key to knowledge creation. Consequently, the knowledge becomes crystallized, thus allowing it to be shared with and by others. In this paper, we present SALT (Semantically Annotated \({\rm L\kern-.36em\raise.3ex\hbox{\sc a}\kern-.15em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}\)), a semantic authoring framework that aims at defining a clear formalization for externalizing the knowledge captured within rhetorical and argumentation discourses. SALT follows a layered approach with the goal of providing a comprehensive domain-independent model for scientific publications, based of three ontologies: (i) the Document Ontology, capturing the linear structure of the publication, (ii) the Rhetorical Ontology, modeling the rhetorical and argumentation, and (iii) the Annotation Ontology, linking the rhetoric and argumentation to the publication’s structure and content.

SALT can be used independently of the writing environment. As proof-of-concept, we show its application in \({\rm L\kern-.36em\raise.3ex\hbox{\sc a}\kern-.15em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}\) , based on a special \({\rm L\kern-.36em\raise.3ex\hbox{\sc a}\kern-.15em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}\) syntax and in MS Word 2003, using visual controls. The resulting semantic documents can be used in a variety of applications, one of them being briefly detailed in this paper.

Finally, in addition to a detailed discussion on the state-of-the-art, the paper presents the evaluation we have carried out, to analyze the framework’s soundness, suitability for the task and its general usability during the authoring process.


Semantic Authoring Rhetorical Structure Argumentation Ontologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsujii, J.: Refine and PathText, which combines Text Mining with Pathways. Keynote at Semantic Enrichment of the Scientific Literature 2009, SESL 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bush, V.: As We Think. The Atlantic Monthly 176(1), 101–108 (1945)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Waard, A., Tel, G.: The ABCDE format - enabling semantic conference proceeding. In: Proceedings of 1st Workshop: SemWiki 2006 - From Wiki to Semantics, Budva, Montenegro (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shum, S.J.B., Uren, V., Li, G., Sereno, B., Mancini, C.: Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues. Int. J. of Intelligent Systems 22(1), 17–47 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory of text organization. Technical Report RS-87-190, Information Science Institute (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as elements of information system. Working paper 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California (1970)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tempich, C., Pinto, H.S., Sure, Y., Staab, S.: An Argumentation Ontology for Distributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groza, T., Handschuh, S., Möller, K., Decker, S.: KonneX-SALT: First Steps Towards a Semantic Claim Federation Infrastructure. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 80–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeRose, S., Maler, E., Daniel Jr., R.: Xpointer xpointer() scheme (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosso, P., Maler, E., Marsh, J., Walsh, N.: Xpointer element() scheme (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sure, Y., Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hartmann, J., Oberle, D.: The SWRC Ontology – Semantic Web for Research Communities. In: Bento, C., Cardoso, A., Dias, G. (eds.) EPIA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3808, pp. 218–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teufel, S., Carletta, J., Moens, M.: An annotation scheme for discourse-level argumentation in research articles. In: Proc. of the 9th Conf. on European Chapter of the ACL, pp. 110–117. ACL, Morristown (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harmsze, F.A.P.: A modular structure for scientific articles in an electronic environment. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders, T.J.M., Spooren, W.P.M., Noordman, L.G.M.: Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2), 93–133 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Waard, A., Kircz, J.: Modeling Scientific Research Articles – Shifting Perspectives and Persistent Issues. In: Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Electronic Publishing, ElPub 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Conklin, J., Begeman, M.L.: gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Team Design Deliberation. In: HYPERTEXT 1987: Proceeding of the ACM Conference on Hypertext, pp. 247–251. ACM Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Conklin, J., Begeman, M.L.: gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. In: CSCW 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 140–152. ACM Press, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mancini, C., Shum, S.B.: Modelling discourse in contested domains: a semiotic and cognitive framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64(11), 1154–1171 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ciccarese, P., Wu, E., Wong, G., Ocana, M., Kinoshita, J., Ruttenberg, A., Clark, T.: The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology. J. of Biomedical Informatics 41(5), 739–751 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breslin, J., Decker, S., Harth, A., Bojars, U.: SIOC: An Approach to Connect Web-Based Communities. The Int. J. of Web-Based Communities 2(2) (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Casati, F., Giunchiglia, F., Marchese, M.: Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the Web. Technical Report DIT-07-073, Informatica e Telecomunicazioni, University of Trento (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giunchiglia, F., ChenuAbente, R.: Scientific Knowledge Objects V.1. Technical Report DISI-09-006, Ing. e Scienza dell’Informazione, Univ. of Trento (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tudor Groza
    • 1
    • 2
  • Siegfried Handschuh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefan Decker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.DERI, National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.IDA Business Park, Lower DanganGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations