Front Cover

    Preface [Full Text]
    Paul Kirschner, et al.

    Chapter One
    Simon Buckingham Shum

    Chapter Two
    Jan van Bruggen, et al.

    Chapter Three
    Gellof Kansellar, et al.

    Chapter Four
    Chad Carr

    Chapter Five
    Tim van Gelder

    Chapter Six
    Jeff Conklin

    Chapter Seven
    Albert Selvin

    Chapter Eight
    Robert Horn

    Chapter Nine
    Simon Buckingham Shum
    et al.

    Afterword
    Douglas Engelbart

    Index
 

 




Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making.
Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham Shum and Chad S. Carr (Eds.)
Springer-Verlag: London
2003
ISBN 1-85233-6641-1
www.VisualizingArgumentation.info


Recommend to a Friend
Purchase Now
 


Chapter 9

Visualizing Internetworked Argumentation


Simon Buckingham Shum, Victoria Uren, Gangmin Li, John Domingue, Enrico Motta
Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK


Figures
(enlargements/colour versions of reduced/black and white figures in the book)

Figure 9.2: User interface to ClaiMaker, showing how a researcher can build a set of claims. Key: (1) A claim that has already been constructed, ready to submit; (2) the Concept to link from, which has (3) been assigned the type Evidence, and (4) linked via the Relational Class Supports/Challenges, (5) more specifically, refutes (selected from the dialect-specific menu). (6) The user then searched the knowledge base for a target Concept, Set or Claim to which they wish to make the connection.

Figure 9.4: Visual claims analysis of part of Chapter 7 by Selvin.

Figure 9.5: Visual claims analysis of part of Chapter 5 by van Gelder.

Figure 9.6: A claim-making template for a stereotypical empirical software evaluation paper. The structure provides scaffolding for authors to think about their work, and perhaps for reviewers to evaluate it by making it easier to trace concepts with which they are less familiar. The highlighted structure shows the expected core contribution of an evaluation paper: evidence about the effectiveness of a software system.

Figure 9.8: A 3-core cluster extracted from a network of claims and argumentation links. From hundreds of nodes modelling literature on text categorization, only those which connect to at least 3 other nodes in the cluster are presented (with link labels switched off). A flavour of key issues in the field is given without overwhelming the viewer.

Figure 9.9: Arguments that contrast with the concepts in a research paper by Chen and Ho (2000). Key: clicking info icon displays concept metadata; anchor icon sets the concept as the focal concept, to show incoming and outgoing relations; document icon links to the document metadata/URL. person icon links to information about the concept's creator.

Figure 9.10: Examining the 'relational neighbourhood' around a focal concept. The concept Optimized rules outperform Naïve Bayes and decision trees (discovered in Figure 9.9) now occupies the centre in order to show incoming and outgoing links. Any concept displayed can then be made the focal concept by clicking on its document icon icon.

Figure 9.12: Visualization of the results of a lineage analysis, a representation of the claims in the network on which the top concept explicitly and implicitly builds, or alternatively, a guide to the local context in which a concept is embedded.



Cited References/Websites

Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.

Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V., & Hammond, N. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267-300.

Buckingham Shum, S., Motta, E., & Domingue, J. (2000). ScholOnto: An ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 3(3), 237-248.

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/SBS_DCP2002.pdf

Chen, H., & Ho, T. K. (2000). Evaluation of decision forests on text categorization. Proc. 7th SPIE Conference on Document Recognition and Retrieval, 191-199.

Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (in press). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics.

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.

Garfield, E. (1994, October 10). Research fronts. Current Contents. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/citationanalysis/11.html

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.

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.

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.

Li, G., Uren, V., Motta, E., Buckingham Shum, S., & Domingue, J. (2002). ClaiMaker: weaving a semantic web of research papers. 1st International Semantic Web Conference, (Sardinia, June 9-12th, 2002). Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/docs/ClaiMaker-ISWC2002.pdf

Mancini, C., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2001). Cognitive coherence relations and hypertext: From cinematic patterns to scholarly discourse. Proc. ACM Hypertext 2001, (Aug. 14-18, Århrus, Denmark), 165-174. New York:. ACM Press Retrieved from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/tr/papers/kmi-tr-110.pdf

Newman, S., & Marshall, C. (1991). Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme (Technical Report SSL 92-45). Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

Pajek (2002). Program for Large Network Analysis. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/default.htm

Reader, W., & Hammond, N. (1994). Computer-Based Tools to Support Learning from Hypertext: Concept Mapping Tools and Beyond. Computers in Education, 22, 99-106.

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).

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 Work, 8(4), 333-352.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trigg, R., & Weiser, M. (1983). TEXTNET: A Network-Based Approach to Text Handling. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(1), (pp 97-100)

Watts, D. J. (1999). Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


Other Related Resources

ClaiMaker web environment for modelling and analysing claims and arguments in any digital library.

Back to Top

Back to Front Cover