DISCOURSIUM for CooperativeExamination of Information in the

Context of the Pragmatic Web

Fahri Yetim,Cologne, Germany

Email: Yetim@acm.org

Outline

Theoretical Background Examination Dialogue Meta-Communication Concepts for Examining

Information From Theory to Practice: Modeling with

Compendium From Compendium to DISCOURSIUM

Critical Examination of Information Objects Critical Examination of Arguments (or Maps)

Conclusions

Theoretical Background:Characteristics of Examination Dialogue

Dunne et al., 2005:“In such dialogues one party – the Questioner Q – elicits statementsand opinions from another – the Responder R – with the aim ofdiscovering R’s position on some topic, either to gain insight into R’sunderstanding and knowledge of the topic, or to expose aninconsistency in R’s position. ” [p. 1560].

Goals of examination dialogues (Walton, 2006)Extraction of informationTesting of the reliability of information

Levels:Understanding and clarification of the meaningCritical discussion of the arguments (attributed to the authors)

“It is the joining together of these two levels that represents thestructure of examination and defines it as a type of dialogue” (Walton,2006, p.775).

Architecture of Meta-Communication

Conversation for Clarification level

Discourse Level

Communication Action Layer

Meta-Communication Layer

Discourse Level

Conversation forClarification LevelPhysical Clarity

Syntactic Clarity

Semantic Clarity

Empirical Validity

Communicative Rationality

Normative Validity

Instrumental Rationality

Strategic Rationality

Aesthetic Rationality

Expressive Validity

Relevance

AestheticCritique

TheoreticalDiscourse

LegalDiscourse

TherapeuticCritique

PragmaticDiscourse

ExplicativeDiscourse

Ethical Discourse

Moral Discourse

The Meta-Communication Model (Yetim 2006)

From Theory to Practice:Modeling with Compendium

Compendium (Buckingham Shum et al.) facilitatesthe capture and structuring of Key Issues in Conversations, Possible Responses to these Issues, and Relevant Arguments

Used here for modeling the issues and discoursesas templates for examination dialogues

Clarification issues and discourses asindependent templates

Discourses with integrated clarificationissues

Explicative Discourse

Modeling the interconnection of twolevels as a template

From Compendium toDISCOURSIUM

Design decision Only the clarification level is used for both

examining information objects (texts) and examining arguments at the discourse level

Argument maps are prepared by facilitators

1. Participants examine a text

2. Facilitators construct maps

We need a

multilingual version

Current design of

our system supports a single language

Our system should

support multilingualism

Customers prefer to

buy multilingual products

supports

supportProviding a

multilingual interface will be costly

We should avoid

doing something costly

Unless we will

recoup the costs through new sales

A system with multilingual features brings new

sales

supports

rebuts

oppose

Compendium

Araucaria

Rationale

3. Facilitators submit the maps

4. Participants examine the maps

We need a

multilingual version

Current design of

our system supports a single language

Our system should

support multilingualism

Customers prefer to

buy multilingual products

supports

supportProviding a

multilingual interface will be costly

We should avoid

doing something costly

Unless we will

recoup the costs through new sales

A system with multilingual features brings new

sales

supports

rebuts

oppose

Examining Arguments by ArgumentSchemes (Walton, 1996 & 2006)

Argument schemes represent stereotypical kinds of reasoning Examples (Walton 1996):

argument from expert opinion, argument from example, argument fromanalogy, etc.

Each scheme represents assumptions/premises of an argument andprovides a set of critical questions to evaluate the assumptions.

Critical questions for “Appeal to Expert Opinion” (Walton, 2006) 1. Expertise Question: How credible is E as an expert source? 2. Field Question: Is E an expert in the field that A is in? 3. Opinion Question: What did E assert that implies A? 4. Trustworthiness Question: Is E personally reliable as a source? 5. Consistency Question: Is A consistent with what other experts

assert? 6. Backup Evidence Question: Is E’s assertion based on evidence?

Examining Argument Maps (I)

“Is the expression of the expert emotionally loaded/aesthetically appealing?“Aesthetic Rationality

“Is the assertion covertly motivated by expert’s egocentriccalculation of success?“Strategic Rationality

“Is the expert (known to be) well organized?”Instrumental Rationality

“Is the expert really authoritative in the relevant field?“Normative Validity

“Is expert’s assertion based on evidence?“Empirical Validity

“Is the expert known to be trustworthy?“Expressive Validity

“Is the assertion of the expert relevant to the domain?“Relevance

“Is the meaning of what expert said comprehensible?“Semantic Clarity

“Is the expression of the expert syntactically clear?”Syntactic Clarity

“Is the expression of the expert perceivable/readable by all?”Physical Clarity

Examples for questioning expert opinionsCategories of CriticalIssues

Examining Argument Maps (II)

“Do symbols/colors on the map look beautiful?”Aesthetic Rationality

“Are some arguments strategically omitted/ misinterpreted/ wronglyplaced?”Strategic Rationality

“Are boxes/nodes on the map efficiently organized?“Instrumental Rationality

“Do representations on the map violate any legal norm or culturalvalue (e.g., ownership, copyrights)?”Normative Validity

“Are all claims on the map really asserted?”Empirical Validity

“Do expressions on the map reflect the sincere intentions of theirowners?”Expressive Validity

“Are all relevant arguments included in the map?”Relevance

“Are texts/links on the map comprehensible?”Semantic Clarity

“Are expressions/links on the map syntactically correct?“Syntactic Clarity

“Are texts/nodes/links on the map readable/visible?”Physical Clarity

Examples for questioning mapsCategories of CriticalIssues

Conclusion

Presented the realization of the meta-communication architecture in DISCOURSIUM making some compromise in design was necessary

Argued that the set of clarification issues can beused for both examining information objects (e.g., texts) and examining arguments

Future Work