Cerutti--NMR 2010

University of BresciaDepartment of Information Engineering

Knowledge Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction Research Group

© 2010 Federico Cerutti <[email protected]>

From UserGenerated Tagging From UserGenerated Tagging to UserAgreed Knowledge:to UserAgreed Knowledge:An ArgumentationBased An ArgumentationBased

Approach Approach

Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Daniela Fogli,

Claudio Gandelli, Massimiliano Giacomin

Slide 2 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <[email protected]>

A Web 2.0 scenario


MaryCarl John

A Web 2.0 scenario

I heard a slaty-backed gull

in Boulder

It's impossible!Those gulls are indigenous

of East Asia

You are wrong!Look at youtube!

I agree with Mary.

Look at local press.

All right... I'm wrong.

1

2

3

4

5


A Web 2.0 scenario:Pros/Cons

Ambiguity, imprecision, lack of relationships,

poor content findability

Quick, close to users' experience Who says what?

Pro or against who/what?Who wins?

How this dialogue affect tags?Does this dialogue provide

new knowledge?


Keep pros, overcome cons:a demonomy

A shared unambiguous dictionary Formal relationships among tags “Unquestionable” knowledge

An arena Opinion exchanging Formal dialogue, as close as possible to users' experience Defeasible knowledge Can also enrich the knowledge provided by the shared

dictionary


The shared unambiguous dictionary: Gull

Wordnet graphical representation by visuwords.com

Legend


The shared unambiguous dictionary: Slaty-backed Gull


The defeasible knowledge

Object(sound, image, document…)

Tag(<gull>, <slaty-backed gull>…)

Tagrelationship

Dictionary term(<gull, seagull>…)

Semanticrelationship


The defeasible knowledge in the example

Unquestionable knowledge There is the sound (an object) X There is a dictionary term <gull, seagull>

Questionable knowledge tag(X, <gull, seagull>) tag(X, <slaty-backed gull>) sem(<slaty-backed gull>, <gull, seagull>, hyperonomy)

How can we codify and question this knowledge?


“Classic” Argumentation Scheme John's statements

Arg1 [From Appearance](Premise) This object looks like it could be classified under verbal category <gull> (C)(Conclusion) Therefore, this object can be classified under verbal category <gull> (C)

Arg3 [From Def. to verbal classification](Definition Premise) <slaty-backed gull> (a) fits definition <large gull...> (D)(Premise) For all x, if x fits definition D, then x can be classified as having property <hyperonomy of D> (G)(Conclusion) a has property G

(CQ1) Could the appearance of its looking like it could be classified under C be misleading for some reason?(CQ2) Although it may look like it can be classified under C, could there be grounds for indicating that it might be more justifiable to classify it under another category D?

tag(X, <gull, seagull>) sem(<slaty-backed gull>, <gull, seagull>, hyperonomy)

Arg2 [From Appearance](Premise) This object looks like it could be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>(Conclusion) Therefore, this object can be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>

tag(X, <slaty-backed gull>)


(CQ1) What evidence is there that D is an adequate definition, in light of other possible alternative definition that might exclude a's having G?(CQ2) Is the verbal classification in the classification premise based merely on a stipulative or biased definition that is subject to doubt?


“Classic” Argumentation SchemeMary's critique

Arg2 [From Appearance](Premise) This object looks like it could be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>(Conclusion) Therefore, this object can be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>


Arg4 [From Position to Know](Major Premise) Source <Mary> (a) is in position to know about things in a certain subject domain <ornithology> (D) containing proposition <Slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia, therefore a specimen of this species cannot be on North America> (A)(Minor Premise) a asserts that A is true(Conclusion) A is true

(CQ1) Is a in position to know whether A is true?(CQ2) Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source?(CQ3) Dis a assert that A is true?


“Classic” Argumentation SchemeJohn's answer

Arg5 [From Expert Opinion](Major Premise) Source <youtube...> (E) is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A(Minor premise) E asserts that proposition A is true(Conclusion) A is true

(CQ1) How credible is E as an expert source?(CQ2) Is E an expert in the field that is in?(CQ3) What did E assert that implies A?(CQ4) Is E personally reliable as a source?(CQ5) Is A consistent with what other experts assert?(CQ6) Is E's assertion based on evidence?

(CQ1) Is a in position to know whether A is true?(CQ2) Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source?(CQ3) Dis a assert that A is true?

Arg4 [From Position to Know](Major Premise) Source <Mary> (a) is in position to know about things in a certain subject domain <ornithology> (D) containing proposition <Slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia, therefore a specimen of this species cannot be on North America> (A)(Minor Premise) a asserts that A is true(Conclusion) A is true


“Classic” Argumentation SchemeCarl's claim

Arg5 [From Expert Opinion](Major Premise) Source <youtube...> (E) is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A(Minor premise) E asserts that proposition A is true(Conclusion) A is true


Arg6 [From Expert Opinion](Major Premise) Source <local press> (E) is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A(Minor premise) E asserts that proposition A is true(Conclusion) A is true



Problematic issues due to the Web Naïve Users

Users do not know what they want to express Users do not know how they should express what

they want Users do not know how to critique other users

Analise the knowledge the users want to share Provide a simplified version of reasoning pattern Balance the burden of proof (avoid fallacious, but

likely in this context, arguments and attacks)


User-centred argumentationRequirements

1 Easy and close to user' experience2 The less knowledge is required, the more it is

appreciated3 Arguments and critiques should be generated in

an obfuscated (for the users) way4 Every user is committed to justify his/her

counterargument5 Automatic evaluation of the acceptability of

arguments through semantics analysis


User-centred argumentationThe Goal

Arg2...

Arg4...

Arg2 Arg4GroundedExtension


User-centred argumentationArguments (1)

Arg1 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <gull, seagull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Arg2 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <slaty-backed gull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.


User-centred argumentationArguments (2)

Arg3 [AUDR]User <john> says that the word <slaty-backed gull> (W) is related to the synset <gull, seagull> (S) according to the <hyponomy> (R) relation, so, the relation R has been added between W and S.


User-centred argumentationCounterarguments (1)

AUT

Why do you say IC1?

Your ownjustification?

Have you got somesort of proof?

Do you know an external informationsource that contradicts user’s claim?

AUDR

Why do you say IC1?

Your ownjustification?

Have you got somesort of proof?

Do you know an external informationsource that contradicts user’s claim?



Arg4 [APK]User <mary> (u) knows that <slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia> (C) holds, and, from C, u derives that <”slaty-backed gull” is not related to “seagull” sound> (a) holds. So it should be the case that a.



Arg5 [ASK]The user <john> says that, acording to the source of knowledge <youtube> (S), it holds that <fromthe fact that the slaty-backed gull is indigenous to East Asia we cannot know that “slaty-backed gull” tag is not related to “seagull” sound> (a). So, it should be the case that a.

Arg6 [ASK]The user <carl> says that, acording to the source of knowledge <local press> (S), it holds that <”youtube” is not credible as a source of knowledge> (a). So, it should be the case that a.


User-centred argumentationThe graph for (counter)arguments (1)

Arg2

Arg1 Arg3`

`

`



Arg4

Arg2



Arg4Arg5


User-centred argumentationThe graph for counterarguments (4)

Arg6 Arg5


User-centred argumentationDialogue as arguments exchange

A dialogue as a sequence of commitments: Propositional commitments

Critique commitments


User-centred argumentationDialogue protocol


User-centred argumentationThe dialogue in the example


User-centred argumentationDetermine the dialogue outcome


User-centred argumentationThe dialogue outcome

Arg1 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <gull, seagull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Arg2 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <slaty-backed gull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Arg3 [AUDR]User <john> says that the word <slaty-backed gull> (W) is related to the synset <gull, seagull> (S) according to the <hyponomy> (R) relation, so, the relation R has been added between W and S.

Arg4 [APK]User <mary> (u) knows that <slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia> (C) holds, and, from C, u derives that <”slaty-backed gull” is not related to “seagull” sound> (a) holds. So it should be the case that a.

Arg5 [ASK]The user <john> says that, acording to the sourche of knowledge <youtube> (S), it holds that <fromthe fact that the slaty-backed gull is indigenous to East Asia we cannot know that “slaty-backed gull” tag is not related to “seagull” sound> (a). So, it should be the case that a.

Arg6 [ASK]The user <carl> says that, acording to the sourche of knowledge <local press> (S), it holds that <”youtube” is not credible as a source of knowledge> (a). So, it should be the case that a.


Result for the user


Conclusion

“Demonomy” Shared unambiguous dictionary An arena

User-centred argumentation A set of innovative reasoning patterns specifically

designed, in this case, for Web 2.0 Users formalised as argument schemes

The less knowledge required, the more appreciated Every user is committed to justify his/her counterargument Automatic evaluation of the justification status of

arguments through semantics analysis


Future works

More (and more general) argument schemes More (and more general) invalidity conditions Study and encompass more Web 2.0 users' needs Voting mechanism Running prototype

Users' evaluation Feedback about users' experience

© 2010 Federico Cerutti <[email protected]>

From User-Generated Tagging to From User-Generated Tagging to User-Agreed Knowledge:User-Agreed Knowledge:

An Argumentation-Based Approach An Argumentation-Based Approach

Thank you

Documents

Cerutti--NMR 2010