Community-Driven Language Development

International audienceSoftware development processes are becoming more collaborative, trying to integrate end-users as much as possible. The idea is to advance towards a community- driven process where all actors (both technical and non-technical) work together to ensure that the system-to-be will satisfy all expectations. This seems specially appropriate in the field of Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) typically designed to facilitate the development of software for a particular domain. DSLs offer constructs closer to the vocabulary of the domain which simplifies the adoption of the DSL by end-users. Interestingly enough, the development of DSLs is not a collaborative process itself. In this sense, the goal of this paper is to propose a collaborative infrastructure for the development of DSLs where end-users have a direct and active participation in the evolution of the language. This infrastructure is based on Collaboro, a DSL to represent change proposals, possible solutions and comments arisen during the development and evolution of a language

Arguing for Argument’s Sake? Exploring Public Conversations around Climate Change on Twitter

Audience-facilitated information flow has become the new norm created by a public divergence from traditional media sources. Mobile device advancements and partnerships have changed how audiences view news media and the sources relied upon to obtain information. With these advancements, social media users have become primary information providers and information gatekeepers. Twitter specifically has become a news media platform for some based on its effectiveness in facilitating information flow and triggering reorganization as it provides a platform for collaboration and coordination. Despite widespread acceptance of the threat climate change poses by the scientific community, it is still a topic of contention on social media. Climate conversations are typically approached with an us versus them mindset with us being used as representation of the communities to which audiences belong. The communities one belongs to typically follows social media users social, political and environmental ideologies. Walton’s theory of argument or inference schemes served as the theoretical framework for this study. Argument schemes represent common arguments and special context arguments, in this case scientific argumentation. Walton’s argument from ignorance was used as a framework for the study. The argument states that if there has been a thorough search through the knowledge base then concrete proof of a fact would exist. The findings indicated social media may be a useful tool when exploring climate change conversations through a sociopolitical lens and additional research is needed to closely examine how political ideologies, global location, and different environmental topics impact issue awareness and beliefs

A Semantic Deliberation Model for e-Participation

There have been very few attempts so far to develop a comprehensive and rigorous conceptualization for deliberations in e-participation. Without a rigorous and formal conceptualization of deliberation, consistent content descriptions creation, deliberation records sharing and seamless exploration is difficult. In addition, no e-participation deliberation ontology exists to support citizen-led e-participation particularly when considering contributions made on the social media platforms. This work bridges this gap by providing a rich conceptualization and corresponding formal and executable ontology for deliberation in the context of e-participation. The semantic model covers the core concepts of technology-mediated political discussion and explicitly supports the integrated citizen- and government-led model of e-Participation enabled by social media. Results from the use of the ontology in describing e-Participation deliberation information at Local Government projects are also presented

Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks

Nowadays, many websites allow social networking between their users in an explicit or implicit way. In this work, we show how argumentation schemes theory can provide a valuable help to formalize and structure on-line discussions and user opinions in decision support and business oriented websites that held social networks between their users. Two real case studies are studied and analysed. Then, guidelines to enhance social decision support and recommendations with argumentation are provided.This work summarises results of the authors joint research, funded by an STMS of the Agreement Technologies COST Action 0801, by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Atkinson, KM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Grasso, F.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; Mcburney, PJ. (2013). Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks. Artificial Intelligence Review. 39(1):39-62. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9389-0S3962391Amgoud L (2009) Argumentation for decision making. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinAnderson P (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Iechnology and Standards Watch reportBentahar J, Meyer CJJ, Moulin B (2007) Securing agent-oriented systems: an argumentation and reputation-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on information technology: new generations (ITNG 2007), IEEE Computer Society, pp 507–515Buckingham Shum S (2008) Cohere: towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, pp 28–30Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User-Adapt Interact 12:331–370Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2008) Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2008), pp 116–127Chesñevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG, Gonzàlez MP (2009) Empowering recommendation technologies through argumentation. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 403–422García AJ, Dix J, Simari GR (2009) Argument-based logic programming. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGolbeck J (2006) Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on trust management, LNCS, vol 3986, 93–104Gordon T, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896Guha R, Kumar R, Raghavan P, Tomkins A (2004) Propagating trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on, World Wide Web, pp 403–412Heras S, Navarro M, Botti V, Julián V (2009) Applying dialogue games to manage recommendation in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent aystems, ArgMASHeras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010a) How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, vol 216, pp 267–274Heras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010b) Applying argumentation to enhance dialogues in social networks. In: ECAI 2010 workshop on computational models of natural argument, CMNA, pp 10–17Karacapilidis N, Tzagarakis M (2007) Web-based collaboration and decision making support: a multi-disciplinary approach. Web-Based Learn Teach Technol 2(4):12–23Kim D, Benbasat I (2003) Trust-related arguments in internet stores: a framework for evaluation. J Electron Commer Res 4(2):49–64Kim D, Benbasat I (2006) The effects of trust-assuring arguments on consumer trust in internet stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Inf Syst Rese 17(3):286–300Laera L, Tamma V, Euzenat J, Bench-Capon T, Payne T (2006) Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2006)Lange C, Bojãrs U, Groza T, Breslin J, Handschuh S (2008) Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites. In: Social data on the web (SDoW2008) workshop at the 7th international semantic web conferenceLinden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7(1):76–80Linden G, Hong J, Stonebraker M, Guzdial M (2009) Recommendation algorithms, online privacy and more. Commun ACM, 52(5)Mika P (2007) Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics. J Web Semant 5(1):5–15Montaner M, López B, de la Rosa JL (2002) Opinion-based filtering through trust. In: Cooperative information agents VI, LNCS, vol 2446, pp 127–144Ontañón S, Plaza E (2008) Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASPazzani MJ, Billsus D (2007) Content-based recommendation systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 325–341Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif Intell 171(10–15):897–921Rahwan I, Banihashemi B (2008) Arguments in OWL: a progress report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA), pp 297–310Reed C, Walton D (2007) Argumentation schemes in dialogue. In: Dissensus and the search for common ground, OSSA-07, volume CD-ROM, pp 1–11Sabater J, Sierra C (2002) Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 1, pp 475–482Schafer JB, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2001) E-commerce recommendation applications. Data Min Knowl Discov 5:115–153Schafer JB, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 291–324Schneider J, Groza T, Passant A (2012) A review of argumentation for the aocial semantic web. Semantic web-interoperability, usability, applicability. IOS Press, Washington, DCTempich C, Pinto HS, Sure Y, Staab S (2005) An argumentation ontology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Proceedings of the 2nd European semantic web conference, ESWC, pp 241–256Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKTrojahn C, Quaresma P, Vieira R, Isaac A (2009) Comparing argumentation frameworks for composite ontology matching. in: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASTruthMapping. http://truthmapping.com/Walter FE, Battiston S, Schweitzer F (2007) A model of a trust-based recommendation system on a social network. J Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 16(1):57–74Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, New York, NYWalton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeWells S, Gourlay C, Reed C (2009) Argument blogging. Computational models of natural argument, CMNAWyner A, Schneider J (2012) Arguing from a point of view. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologie

The Planetary System: Web 3.0 Active Documents for STEM

AbstractIn this paper we present the Active Documents Paradigm (semantically annotated documents associated with a content commons that holds the corresponding background ontologies) and the Planetary system (as an active document player). We show that the current Planetary system gives a solid foundation and can be extended modularly to address most of the criteria of the Executable Papers Challenge

ArgumentBind - A Model for Implementing Argument Web Integrated Applications with Open and Linked Data

Online communication and collaboration tools are widely employed by users in order to express their opinions on a vast amount of subjects. These tools were not designed to accurately identify topics, nor to point out relationships between topic elements related to a given discussion. As it turns out, there is a staggering amount of user-contributed information generally available, and conversely, a huge challenge related to accurately pointing out featured topics and their intertwining relationships and sources. The main purpose of Argument Web is to define a rich, full-featured annotation model capable of storing relationships between topics and their sources. Given the availability of rich, interlinked data about a number of related subjects, Argument Web can potentially increase the quality of online discussions and the analysis of its components. However, there is still a reduced number of real-world applications based on these concepts. Even in well-known projects, there\u27s still a lack of exploration efforts related to the use of open and linked data. This paper presents an application model based on Argument Interchange Format (AIF) and state-of-the-art semantic Web technology. Its main contribution lies in the integration of external source information, linked data formats and data visualization aspects. The solution is then evaluated through a case-study related to the use of open and linked data on the field of public administration