1. 1 Towards Scholarly Publishing on the Semantic Web Simon Buckingham Shum Senior Lecturer Open University, Knowledge Media Institute Gary Li, Victoria Uren John Domingue, Enrico Motta EPSRC DIMnet Workshop, Manchester, 7-8 Oct., 2002

2. 2 In 2010, will scholarly work still be published solely in prose, or can we imagine a complementary infrastructure that is ‘native’ to the emerging semantic, collaborative web, enabling more effective dissemination and analysis of ideas?

3. 3 Project facts and figures  Scholarly Ontologies (ScholOnto) Project  3 year project /started Feb. 2001  PI: Simon Buckingham Shum  Co-Investigator’s: John Domingue, Enrico Motta  Research Fellows: Gary Li, Victoria Uren  PhDs: 5 related projects  Partner: Academic Press  Synergy with other EPSRC projects at KMi:  Advanced Knowledge Technologies IRC  CoAKTinG: eScience Grid collaboration tools

4. 4 Overview  Problem: little computational support for interpreting and analysing research literatures  Approach: literatures as networks of ‘claims’: connected concepts  Theoretical basis: argumentation, coherence relations, KB-hypertext  Infrastructure: ClaiMaker – a ‘claims server’ to construct and analyse scholarly claims  Progress to date

5. 5 Phenomena of interest to scholars “Who’s building on the ideas in this paper, and in what way?” “Who’s challenged this paper?” “Has anyone proposed a similar solution but from a different theoretical perspective?” “Are there groups building on theory T, but who contradict each other?” “Has anyone generalised method M from domain D to E?” “Is there any software which tackles problem P?” “What impact did Language L have?” “Are there distinctive theoretical perspectives on problem P?”

6. 6 What students/researchers/information analysts want to know  Authority  Impact  Schools of thought  Intellectual lineage  Consistency

7. 7 resources documents, datasets, etc… metadata generally uncontroversial: minimise inconsistency, ambiguity, controversy domain ontologies richer formalisation of consensus: minimise inconsistency, ambiguity, controversy interpretations?

8. 8 “The Scent of a Site: A System for Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent, Usage, and Usability of a Web Site” Web User Flow by Information Scent (WUFIS) “Information foraging” Information foraging theory Information scent models People try to maximise their rate of gaining information ? extends From undifferentiated, inter-document citations… …to inter-concept, semantic connections

9. 9 ? Claims Counterclaims Emergent domain model grounded in perspectives

10. 10 Claims Counterclaims Emergent domain model grounded in perspectives

11. 11 ScholOnto in a nutshell…  Literatures as networks of concepts…  …which are grounded in documents  Connections between nodes are claims  Core set of connection types, which can be expressed in discipline-specific dialects  Multiple claim structures from diverse perspectives  A server mediates and helps manage the complexity of the claims network

12. 12 Structure of a connective Claim Link Object - concept - data - set/claim

13. 13 A Set of Concepts, Claims, Objects

14. 14 Structure of a connective Claim Link Object - concept - data - set/claim

15. 15 ‘Concepts’  Succinct summaries of a publication’s contribution to the literature (granularity chosen by the user)  Optionally given a type  Example 1  [Theory] Salomon (1987)  [Hypothesis] Animations can supplant key cognitive processes in learning collision mechanics, impairing deep understanding  [Data] Animations explaining momentum in the tool XtremePhysics improve the performance of middle-high achieving 16 yr olds, but impair low achievers  Example 2  [Problem] How to reduce disorientation in non-linear narrative?  [Theory] Cognitive Coherence Relations (Knott and Sanders, 1999)  [Theory] Semiotics of Cinema  [Framework] Cinematic Hypermedia

16. 16 Relations: Discourse Ontology (v2)

17. 17 What students/researchers/information analysts want to know  Authority (quality and quantity of evidence for/against)  Impact (semantically typed citations)  Schools of thought (clusters of concepts sharing a foundation)  Intellectual lineage (assumptions/foundations)  Consistency (structural integrity)

18. 18 Making connections in ClaiMaker

19. 19 The need for visualizations…

20. 20 Towards visual claim-making

21. 21 Visual claim-making

22. 22 Visual claim-making

23. 23 Conceptual claim-making template for an Evaluation Report

24. 24 Discovery Services  The payback for modelling  New forms of digital visibility for research  Graph-based services  Dense cluster detection  Scientometrics (e.g. co-citation at the semantic inter-concept level)  Ontology-based services  Semantic structural search  Show supporting documents  Show challenging documents  Show a concept’s lineage  Visualizations to support navigation and querying

25. 25 Identifying potentially significant clusters A 3-core cluster extracted from a network of claims and argumentation links. From hundreds of nodes modelling literature on text categorization, only those which connect to at least 3 other nodes in the cluster are presented (with link labels switched off). A flavour of key issues in the field is given without overwhelming the viewer.

26. 26 Visualizing the results of a structural search on specific relational types (TouchGraph applet)

27. 27 Navigating the network by document: incoming and outgoing concepts

28. 28 Visualizing the ‘lineage’ (intellectual history) of a concept Zooming, rotation, focusing and filtering

29. 29 What documents challenge this one? 1.Extract concepts for this document 2.Trace concepts on which they build 3.Trace concepts challenging this set 4.Show root documents

30. 30 Focusing on a concept from previous view

31. 31 Next steps  ClaiMaker released  wide interest from both researchers (academia/government/corporate) and publishers  Develop customisable software agents  monitor the claims network for patterns of interest to users  Extend the discovery services  tools to interrogate/navigate  Extend the visualization services  making sense of the claims network  Foster user communities  broad spectrum of science/arts/humanities to test generality

32. 32 Visualizing Argumentation (2002, in press), Springer www.VisualizingArgumentation.info Argument mapping for scholarly publishing, scientific and public policy debates, education, teamwork, and organisational memory

33. 33 Scholarly Ontologies Project Tech. Details/Publications: kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto ClaiMaker test area: claimaker.open.ac.uk/Sandpit