1 / 25

Ontological Foundations for Scholarly Debate Mapping Technology

Ontological Foundations for Scholarly Debate Mapping Technology. Neil BENN, Simon BUCKINGHAM SHUM, John DOMINGUE, Clara MANCINI. COMMA ‘08, 29 May 2008. Outline. Background: Access vs. Analysis Research Objectives Debate Mapping ontology Example: Representing & analysing the Abortion Debate

mirit
Télécharger la présentation

Ontological Foundations for Scholarly Debate Mapping Technology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ontological Foundations for Scholarly Debate Mapping Technology Neil BENN, Simon BUCKINGHAM SHUM, John DOMINGUE, Clara MANCINI COMMA ‘08, 29 May 2008

  2. Outline • Background: Access vs. Analysis • Research Objectives • Debate Mapping ontology • Example: Representing & analysing the Abortion Debate • Concluding Remarks

  3. Access vs. Analysis • Need to move beyond accessing academic documents • search engines, digital libraries, e-journals, e-prints, etc. • Need support for analysing knowledge domains to determine (e.g.) • Who are the experts? • What are the canonical papers? • What is the leading edge?

  4. Two ‘KDA’ Approaches • Bibliometrics approach • Focus on ‘citation’ relation • Thus, low representation costs (automatic citation mining) • Network-based reasoning for identifying structures and trends in knowledge domains (e.g. research fronts) • Tool examples: CiteSeer, Citebase, CiteSpace

  5. CiteSpace

  6. Two ‘KDA’ Approaches • Semantics • Multiple concept and relation types • Concepts and relations specified in an ontology • Ontology-based representation to support more ‘intelligent’ information retrieval • Tool examples: ESKIMO, CS AKTIVE SPACE, ClaiMaker, Bibster

  7. Bibster

  8. Research Objectives • None considers the macro-discourse of knowledge domains • Discourse analysis should be a priority – other forms of analysis are partial indices of discourse structure • What is the structure of the ongoing dialogue? What are the controversial issues? What are the main bodies of opinion? • Aim to support the mapping and analysis of debate in knowledge domains

  9. Debate Mapping Ontology • Based on ‘logic of debate’ theorised in Yoshimi (2004) and demonstrated by Robert Horn • – Issues, Claims and Arguments • supports and disputes as main inter-argument relations • Similar to IBIS structure • Concerned with macro-argument structure • What are the properties of a given debate?

  10. Ex: Using Wikipedia Source

  11. Issues

  12. Propositions and Arguments

  13. Publications and Persons

  14. Explore New Functionality • Features of the debate not easily obtained from raw source material • E.g. Detecting clusters of viewpoints in the debate • A macro-argumentation feature • As appendix to supplement (not replace) source material • Reuse citation network clustering technique

  15. Reuse Mismatch • Network-based techniques require single-link-type network representations • ‘Similarity’ assumed between nodes • Typically ‘co-citation’ as similarity measure

  16. Inference Rules Co-authorship Co-membership • Implement ontology axioms for inferring other meaningful similarity connections • Rules-of-thumb (heuristics) not laws

  17. Inference Rules Mutual Dispute Mutual Support • All inferences interpreted as ‘Rhetorical Similarity’ in debate context • Need to investigate cases where heuristics breakdown

  18. Applying the Rules

  19. Cluster Analysis Visualisation and clustering performed using NetDraw

  20. Debate ‘Viewpoint Clusters’

  21. Reinstating Semantic Types BASIC-ANTI-ABORTION-ARGUMENT BASIC-PRO-ABORTION-ARGUMENT ABORTION-BREAST-CANCER-HYPOTHESIS BODILY-RIGHTS-ARGUMENT DON_MARQUIS JUDITH_THOMSON ERIC_OLSON PETER_SINGER EQUALITY-OBJECTION-ARGUMENT CONTRACEPTION-OBJECTION-ARGUMENT DEAN_STRETTON RESPONSIBILITY-OBJECTION-ARGUMENT MICHAEL_TOOLEY TACIT-CONSENT-OBJECTION-ARGUMENT Visualisation and clustering performed using NetDraw

  22. Two Viewpoint Clusters BASIC-PRO-ABORTION-ARGUMENT JUDITH_THOMSON PETER_SINGER DEAN_STRETTON JEFF_MCMAHAN JEFF_MCMAHAN ERIC_OLSON DON_MARQUIS BASIC-ANTI-ABORTION-ARGUMENT

  23. Concluding Remarks • Need for technology to support ‘knowledge domain analysis’ • Focussed specifically on the task of analysing debates within knowledge domains • Ontology-based representation of debate • Aim to capture macro-argument structure • With goal of exploring new types of analytical results • e.g. clusters of viewpoints in the debate (which is enabled by reusing citation network-based techniques)

  24. Limitations & Future Work • The ontology-based representation process is expensive (time and labour): • Are there enough incentives to makes humans participate in this labour-intensive task? • Need technical architecture (right tools, training, etc.) for scaling up • Viewpoint clustering validation • Currently only intuitively valid • Possibility of validating against positions identified by domain experts • Matching against ‘philosophical camps’ identified on Horn debate maps of AI domain

  25. Thank you

More Related