DISCOURSIUM for cooperative examination of information in the context of the pragmatic web

ABSTRACT

This paper argues that examination of information in the context of the Pragmatic Web needs to be conducted in a discursive and structured manner. It focuses on examination dialogues and proposes a novel approach to supporting these dialogues in DISCOURSIUM, a tool and methodology for discursive practice based on the meta-communication architecture [29]. To achieve its objective, this paper firstly describes the characteristics of examination dialogues and justifies the relevance of the metacommunication concepts for critically examining information. It secondly illustrates how they can be modeled in the context of the discourse-support system Compendium in order to provide users with templates for examination dialogues. After discussing the limitations of such a modeling, the paper then presents the rationale and methodology of the DISCOURSIUM. It particularly illustrates how DISCOURSIUM can build on the strengths and potential of some current argument mapping technologies, and how the argument maps created can further be critically examined. Finally, this paper concludes that the objective and characteristics of DISCOURSIUM focusing on the pragmatic aspects of information and examination dialogues intersect with the concepts of the Pragmatic Web.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alavi, M.; Leidner, D. E. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly 25, 1 (2001), 107--136.
• 2: Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966.
• 3: Capurro, R. Ethical Challenges of the Information Society in the 21^st Century. International Information & Library Review 32 (2000), 257--276.
• 4: Jeff Conklin, Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2005
• 5: Buckingham Shum, S. Sensemaking on the Pragmatic Web: A Hypermedia Discourse Perspective. In: Proceedings of 1. int. Conference on the Pragmatic Web. Stuttgart, Germany, 2006
• 6: Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, 1994
• 7: Dunne, P. E.; Doutre, S.; Bench-Capon, T. Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues. In: Proceedings of international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-05), Edinburgh, 2005, pp. 1560--1561.
• 8: Shelly Farnham , Harry R. Chesley , Debbie E. McGhee , Reena Kawal , Jennifer Landau, Structured online interactions: improving the decision-making of small discussion groups, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.299-308, December 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/358916.359001]
• 9: Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms. MIT Press, Boston, MA, 1996.
• 10: Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston, MA, Vol. I, 1984.
• 11: Hoppenbrouwers, S. and Weigand, H. Meta-communication in the Language Action Perspective. In: M. Schoop and C. Quix, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, 2000. Available at: www-i5.informatik.rwthaachen.de/conf/lap2000.
• 12: Murat Karamuftuoglu, Collaborative information retrieval: toward a social informatics view of IR interaction, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v.49 n.12, p.1070-1080, Oct. 1998 [doi>10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:12<1070::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-S]
• 13: Paul A. Kirschner , Simon J. Buckingham Shum , Chad S. Carr, Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, Springer-Verlag, London, 2003
• 14: Kuhlen, R. Die Konsequenzen von Informationsassistenten. Was bedeutet informationelle Autonomie oder wie kann Vertrauen in elektronische Dienste in offenen Informationsmärkten gesichert werden? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1999.
• 15: Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
• 16: Reed, C. and Rowe, G. Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14, 3--4 (2004).
• 17: Mareike Schoop , Aldo de Moor , Jan L.G. Dietz, The pragmatic web: a manifesto, Communications of the ACM, v.49 n.5, May 2006 [doi>10.1145/1125944.1125979]
• 18: Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York, 1983.
• 19: Te'eni, D. Review: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for Designing IT, MIS Quarterly 25, 2 (2001), 251--312.
• 20: Toulmin, S. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958.
• 21: Ulrich, W. A Philosophical Staircase for Information Systems Definition, Design and Development, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 3 (2001), 55--84.
• 22: Victoria Uren , Simon Buckingham Shum , Michelle Bachler , Gangmin Li, Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.64 n.5, p.420-445, May 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.004]
• 23: Van den Braak, S. W.; van Oostendorp, H.; Prakken, H.; Vreeswijk, G. A. A Critical Review of Argument Visualization Tools: Do Users Become Better Reasoners? Proceedings of the ECAI-06 Workshop, 2006.
• 24: Walton, D.; Krabbe, E. C. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State Univ. of New York Press, 1995
• 25: Walton, D. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1996.
• 26: Walton, D. Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006), 745--777.
• 27: Wellmer, A. Ethik und Dialog: Elemente des Moralischen Urteils bei Kant und in der Diskursethik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp (2. Auflage), 1999.
• 28: Wersig, G. Information Theory. In: Feather, J.; Sturges, P. (Eds.): Encyclopedic Dictionary of Library and Information Science. London: Routledge, 220--227, 1997.
• 29: Fahri Yetim, Acting with genres: discursive-ethical concepts for reflecting on and legitimating genres, European Journal of Information Systems, v.15 n.1, p.54-69, February 2006 [doi>10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000595]
• 30: Yetim F. and Turoff, M. Structuring Communication Processes and Enhancing Public Discourse: The Delphi Method Revisited, Proceedings of Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modeling, 2004. Available at: www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aakhus/lap/Proceedings.htm.
• 31: Yetim, F. Universal Actability: Towards an integral Understanding of Universal Usability, (Intercultural) Action Competence, and Information Systems Actability, Proceedings of Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modeling, 2004. Available at: www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aakhus/lap/Proceedings.htm.
• 32: Yetim, F. Universal Actability of and with Knowledge: Managing and Communicating Knowledge with Patterns. In: Wissen in Aktion (Festschrift for Rainer Kuhlen), Universitätsverlag. Konstanz, Germany, 2004.
• 33: Fahri Yetim, A meta-communication model for structuring intercultural communication action patterns, ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, v.22 n.2, p.16-20, August 2001 [doi>10.1145/605676.605679]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Theory

Keywords:
argument mapping, discourse-support systems, examination dialogues, information quality, pragmatic web