Visualizing Internetworked Argumentation

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?

[1]  Hao Chen,et al.  Evaluation of decision forests on text categorization , 1999, Electronic Imaging.

[2]  Frank M. Shipman,et al.  Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems , 1999, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[3]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[4]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Cognitive coherence relations and hypertext: from cinematic patterns to scholarly discourse , 2001, HYPERTEXT '01.

[5]  Jean Tague-Sutcliffe,et al.  An Introduction to Informetrics , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Enrico Motta,et al.  ClaiMaker: Weaving a Semantic Web of Research Papers , 2002, SEMWEB.

[7]  C. Mellish,et al.  A Feature-Based Account of the Relations Signalled by Sentence and Clause Connectives , 1996 .

[8]  Enrico Motta,et al.  ScholOnto: an ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse , 2000, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[9]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Developments in design methodology , 1984 .

[10]  P. Erdos,et al.  On the evolution of random graphs , 1984 .

[11]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  D. Watts,et al.  Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness , 2001 .

[14]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[15]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[16]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: concept mapping tools and beyond , 1994 .

[17]  Mark Weiser,et al.  TEXTNET: a network-based approach to text handling , 1986, TOIS.

[18]  R GruberThomas.  Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing , 1995 .

[19]  B. Bollobás.  The evolution of random graphs , 1984 .

[20]  T. Sanders,et al.  The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages , 1998 .

[21]  S. E. Newman,et al.  Pushing Toulmin Too Far: Learning From an Argument Representation Scheme , 1998 .

[22]  Gesine Reinert,et al.  Small worlds , 2001, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[23]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Designing Representational Coherence into an Infrastructure for Collective Sensemaking , 2002 .

[24]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks , 2002, Scientometrics.

[25]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science , 1990 .