Archive for the ‘PhD diary’ Category

Wikipedia and the World Wide Argument Web

February 27th, 2011

I spoke about my first year Ph.D. research in December at DERI. The topic of my talk: Wikipedia discussions and the nascent World Wide Argument Web. I was proud to have the video (below) posted to our institute video stream.

The Wikipedia research is drawn from our ACM Symposium on Applied Computing paper:
Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, John G. Breslin, “Understanding and Improving Wikipedia Article Discussion Spaces.” In SAC 2011 (Web Track), TaiChung, Taiwan, March 21-25, 2011.

Jodi Schneider – Constructing knowledge through argument: Wikipedia and World Wide Argument Web from DERI, NUI Galway on Vimeo.

This is ongoing work, and feedback is most welcome.

Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary, social semantic web | Comments (0)

What a text means: genre matters

February 26th, 2011

Can you distinguish what is being said from how it is said?
In other words, what is a ‘proposition’?

Giving an operational definition of ‘proposition’ or of ‘propositional content’ is difficult. Turns out there’s a reason for that:

Metadiscourse does not simply support propositional content: it is the means by which propositional content is made coherent, intelligible and persuasive to a particular audience.

– Ken Hyland Metadiscourse p39 ((I’m really enjoying Ken Hyland’s Metadiscourse. Thanks to Sean O’Riain for a wonderful loan! I’m not ready to summarize his thoughts about what metadiscourse is — for one thing I’m only halfway through.)).

I’m very struck by how the same content can be wrapped with different metadiscourse — resulting in different genres for distinct audiences. When the “same” content is reformulated, new meanings and emphasis may be added along the way. Popularization of science is rich in examples.

For instance, a Science article…

When branches of the host plant having similar oviposition sites were placed in the area, no investigations were made by the H. hewitsoni females.

gets transformed into a Scientific American article…

I collected lengths of P. pittieri vines with newly developed shoots and placed them in the patch of vines that was being regular revisited. The females did not, however, investigate the potential egg-laying sites I had supplied.

This shows the difficulty of making clean separations between the content and the metadiscourse:

“The ‘content’, or subject matter, remains the same but the meanings have changed considerably. This is because the meaning of a text is not just about the propositional material or what the text could be said to be about. It is the complete package, the result of an interactive process between the producer and receiver of a text in which the writer chooses forms and expressions which will best convey his or her material, stance and attitudes.

– Ken Hyland Metadiscourse p39

Example from Hyland (page 21), which credits Myers Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge 1990 (180).

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary, scholarly communication | Comments (0)

“How does this make you feel?”

January 10th, 2011

GetSatisfaction‘s “How does this make you feel?” intrigues me: why do people answer this? Conventional wisdom says that people don’t classify their posts.
GetSatisfaction asks How does this make you feel?
Presumably it’s polite to ask people how they’re doing — at least in some situations. And technically there’s no post classification going on here: it’s mood classification, which most of us are trained in from a young age.

Get Satisfaction aggregates the mood on each discussion thread:
Get Satisfaction's The Mood in Here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary, social web | Comments (2)

Making provenance pay

December 19th, 2010

Provenance, Dan Conover says, can drive the adoption of semantic technologies:

Imagine a global economy in which every piece of information is linked directly to its meaning and origin. In which queries produce answers, not expensive, time-consuming evaluation tasks. Imagine a world in which reliable, intelligent information structures give everyone an equal ability to make profitable decisions, or in many cases, profitable new information products. Imagine companies that get paid for the information they generate or collect based on its value to end users, rather than on the transitory attention it generates as it passes across a screen before disappearing into oblivion.

Now imagine copyright and intellectual property laws that give us practical ways of tracing the value of original contributions and collecting and distributing marginal payments across vast scales.

That’s the Semantic Economy.

– Dan Conover on the semantic economy (my emphasis added).
via Bora Zivkovic on Twitter

I wonder if he’s seen the W3 Provenance XG Final Report yet. Two parts are particularly relevant: the dimensions of provenance and the news aggregator scenario. Truly making provenance pay will require both Management of provenance (especially Access and Scale) and Content provenance around Attribution.

Go read the rest of what Dan Conover says about the semantic economy. Pay particular attention to the end: Dan says that he’s working on a functional spec for a Semantic Content Management System — a RDF-based middleware so easy that writers and editors will want to use it. I know you’re thinking of Drupal and of the Semantic Desktop; we’ll see how he’s differentiating: He invites further conversation.

I’m definitely going to have a closer look at his ideas: I like the way he thinks, and this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed his ideas for making Linked Data profitable.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in future of publishing, information ecosystem, PhD diary, scholarly communication, semantic web | Comments (0)

For LaTeX referencing glitches, check the \label location

December 15th, 2010

Problem: LaTeX gives the section number instead of the figure number in a text reference.
Solution: Be sure that the figure’s label is AFTER its caption.

Correct:

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./images/myimage.png}
\caption{A beautiful, wonderful image.}
\label{fig:myimage}
\end{figure}

Wrong:

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./images/myimage.png}
\label{fig:myimage}
\caption{A beautiful, wonderful image.}
\end{figure}

LaTeX requires \label to follow \caption. That is, a \label preceding a \caption is ignored.
If you’re getting section numbers instead of figure numbers as the response to a \ref, check where the \label is specified.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in PhD diary, random thoughts | Comments (0)

The Social Semantic Web – a message for scholarly publishers

November 15th, 2010

I always appreciate how Geoffrey Bilder can manage to talk about the Social Semantic Web and the early modern print in (nearly) the same breath. See for yourself in the presentation he gave to scholarly publishers at the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors last month.

Geoff’s presentation is outlined, to a large extent, in an interview Geoff gave 18 months ago (search “key messages” to find the good bits). I hope to blog further about these, because Geoff has so many good things to say, which deserve unpacking!

I especially love the timeline from slide 159, which shows that we’re just past the incunabula age of the Internet:

The Early Modern Internet

We're still in the Early Modern era of the Internet. Compare to the history of print.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in future of publishing, information ecosystem, PhD diary, scholarly communication, semantic web, social semantic web, social web | Comments (3)

A Taxonomy for Decisions

November 4th, 2010

Tim van Gelder provides a taxonomy for decisions:

  1. Intuitive Decisions
  2. Technical Decisions
  3. Deliberative Decisions
  4. Bureaucratic Decisions

Deliberative and bureaucratic decisions are, I think, the most important for collaborative decision-making. Intuitive decisions, made quickly by an individual, are least important for collaboration. Technical decisions have the most interesting description: they are “made by following some well-defined technical procedure”; arguably they are not decisions.

Can you spot any overlaps or gaps? Discuss at his article.

The argumentation community has given a lot of attention to deliberation; I wonder if that has been influenced by the prevalence of deliberation in decision-making, and the difficulty of formal modelling of bureaucracies.

Tags: ,
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary | Comments (0)

blog ‘reactions’

November 2nd, 2010

Instead of enabling commenting on your blog, you can let readers ‘react’ by marking the post as ‘funny’, ‘interesting’, or ‘cool’. So far I’ve only seen this on one Blogspot blog, Galway Library’s blog.

Reactions to a blog post

Is this post funny, interesting, or cool?


If you know whether there’s a plugin doing this, or if it’s a general (optional) Blogspot feature, please let me know in the comments.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary, social web | Comments (1)

“Like” and its misuse

October 20th, 2010

Language evolves, and we use words loosely. But I’m more and more disturbed with the way “Like” is being manhandled.
A misuse of the Like button
Argumentation will need to encompass polarity; so I hope that it can help.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary, random thoughts | Comments (4)

CiTO in the wild

October 18th, 2010

CiTO has escaped the lab and can now be used either directly in the CiteULike interface or with CiteULike machine tags. Go Citation Typing Ontology!

In the CiteULike Interface

To add a CiTO relationship between articles using the CiteULike interface, both articles must be in your own library. You’ll see a a “Citations (CiTO)” section after your tags. Click on edit and set the current article as the target.

set the CiTO target

First set the CiTO target

Then navigate around your own library to find a related article. Now you can add a CiTO tag.

Adding a CiTO tag in CiteULike

Adding a CiTO tag in CiteULike

There are a lot of choices. Choose just one. :)

CiTO Object Properties appear in the dropdown

CiTO Object Properties now appear in the dropdown

Congratulations, you’ve added a CiTO relationship! Now mousing over the CiTO section will show details on the related article.

CiTO result

Mouse over the resulting CiTO tag to get details of the related article

Machine Tags

Machine tags take fewer clicks but a little more know-how. They can be added just like any other tag, as long as you know the secret formula: cito--(insert a CiTO Object Property here from this list)--(insert article permalink numbers here) Here are two more concrete examples.

First, we can keep a list of articles citing a paper. For example, tagging an article

cito--cites--1375511

says “this article CiTO:cites article 137511”. Article 137511 can be found at http://www.citeulike.org/article/137511, aka JChemPaint – Using the Collaborative Forces of the Internet to Develop a Free Editor for 2D Chemical Structures. Then we can get the list of (hand-tagged) citations to the article. Look—a community generated reverse citation index!

Second, we can indicate specific relationships between articles, whether or not they cite each other. For example, tagging an article

cito--usesmethodin--423382

says “this item CiTO:usesmethodin item 42338”. Item 42338 is found at http://www.citeulike.org/article/423382, aka The Chemistry Development Kit (CDK):  An Open-Source Java Library for Chemo- and Bioinformatics.

Upshot

Automation and improved annotation interfaces will make CiTO more useful. CiTO:cites and CiTO:isCitedBy could used to mark up existing relationships in digital libraries such as ACM Digital Library and CiteSeer, and could enhance collections like Google Books and Mendeley, to make human navigation and automated use easier. To capture more sophisticated relationships, David Shotton has hopes of authors marking up citations before submitting papers; if it’s required, anything is possible. Data curators and article commentators may observe contradictions between papers, or methodology reuses; in these cases CiTO could be layered with an annotation ontology such as AO in order to make the provenance of such assertions clear.

CiTO could put pressure on existing publishers and information providers to improve their data services, perform more data cleanup, or to exposing bibliographies in open formats. Improved tools will be needed, as well as communities that are willing to add data by hand, and algorithms for inferring deep citation relationships.

One remaining challenge is aggregation of CiTO relationships between bibliographic data providers; article identifiers such as DOI are unfortunately not universal, and the bibliographic environment is messy, with many types of items, from books to theses to white papers to articles to reports. CiTO and related ontologies will help explicitly show the bibliographic web and relationships between these items, on the web of (meta)data.

Further Details

CiTO is part of an ecosystem of citations called Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies (SPAR); see also the JISC Open Citation Project which is taking bibliographic data to the Web, and the JISC Open Bibliography Project. For those familiar with Shotton’s earlier writing on CiTO, note that SPAR breaks out some parts of the earlier formulation of this ontology.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in argumentative discussions, books and reading, information ecosystem, library and information science, PhD diary, scholarly communication, semantic web | Comments (3)