Buckingham Shum, Simon

Domingue, John

Motta, Enrico

English

Open Research Online

Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputsAugmenting design deliberation with Compendium: thecase of collaborative ontology designConference or Workshop ItemHow to cite:Buckingham Shum, Simon; Motta, Enrico and Domingue, John (2002). Augmenting design deliberation withCompendium: the case of collaborative ontology design. In: Facilitating Hypertext-Augmented CollaborativeModelling, 11-12 Jun 2002, Maryland, USA.For guidance on citations see FAQs.c© The Author(s)Version: Accepted ManuscriptCopyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.oro.open.ac.ukPosition Paper, Workshop on Facilitating Hypertext-Augmented Collaborative ModellingACM Hypertext Conference, Maryland, June 11th-12th, 2002 Augmenting Design Deliberation with Compendium:The Case of Collaborative Ontology DesignSimon Buckingham Shum, Enrico Motta, John DomingueKnowledge Media Institute, Open University, UKsbs@acm.org1        IntroductionIn this position paper, I describe ongoing work using the Compendium approach to hypertext-augmented collaborative modelling (HACM). Compendium is being used to support a teamspecifying, designing and implementing an ontology-based information portal.The Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) consortium is a six year research projectbetween five UK universities. One of its main goals is to build significant demonstrations ofknowledge management tools, some of which are based on ontologies, that is, explicitconceptual models of concepts, their attributes and relationships. The Mifflin hypertext toolfor Compendium is itself a tool that will be developed as part of a new AKT-related project(CoAKTinG), and so is being evaluated and refined through a bootstrapping approach inwhich we use it to support our own work.Mifflin is being used by the author to support AKT members in designing a prototype calledthe AKTive Portal (designed to be a next generation portal infrastructure that supports thecapture, indexing, dissemination and querying of information). The first application of theAKTive Portal is for the AKT Project itself, based on an underlying ontology for scientificknowledge management which describes the world of AKT research, such as researchers ofdifferent levels and their affiliations, documents of various status, research events, AKTtechnologies, methods and research themes, etc. The structure of the ontology had to bedesigned from three existing ontologies that partially described research processes andproducts, and Mifflin was used over a series of meetings not only as an integrative medium tocapture general discussions associated with the AKTive Portal (e.g. responsibilities anddeadlines), but in particular, for visualizing the structure of the ontology, in order to agree ondecisions, and capture the rationale. The resulting ontology is now being deployed andrefined, and Mifflin will be used to support this maintenance and revision phase of thelifecycle.In the next section I illustrate the way in which Mifflin was used to support the designprocess, including its integration with other technologies already in use, through data importand export. I then reflect on the lessons learnt to date.2        Compendium-supported collaborative ontology designLet us start with the physical setting for this work. Figure 1 shows a room set up for aCompendium-assisted collaborative design session. The key addition to a conventionalmeeting room with a data projector is the second projector and screen on the right, driven bythe Compendium facilitator. All participants can see both screens without difficulty, so thatattention can be switched without effort to either screen.Figure 1: Room setup for a Compendium-assisted collaborative design session. The keyaddition to a conventional meeting room is the second data projector and screen on the right,driven by the Compendium facilitator.A workshop was held to specify the requirements for the AKTive Portal, with Mifflin beingused to structure and capture the discussion. For instance, Figure 2 shows a number ofscenarios for querying the Portal, generated in this workshop, a map that was returned toseveral times in the subsequent design sessions to verify that the ontology could support thescenarios.Figure 2: Capturing a discussion on end-user scenarios that the system should support. Thisserved as a reference point to verify the design as it emerged in subsequent sessions.The results of this first workshop were exported to HTML and published to the project as aweb discussion document using the D3E toolkit (Figure 3).Figure 3: Conversion of a Mifflin HTML export to a D3E discussion document.A member of the project then wrote a document proposing a way to merge three existingontologies for scientific knowledge management (plus elements from ‘upper level ontologies’of general concepts). This became the point of departure for discussions in a subsequentworkshop. The document was exported from Microsoft Word into Mifflin (each paragraphbecomes a hypertext node, and the document’s tree structure is graphed explicitly: Figure 4).The nodes for the key paragraphs specifying the primary classes required for the ontologywere then transcluded into new maps in order to discuss them.Figure 4: Import from Microsoft Word of the draft specification document. The keyparagraphs for debate (highlighted) are transcluded into new maps, providing the anchorpoints for discussion.Not surprisingly, ontology merging requires easy access to, and switching between, the sourceontologies. All three of the existing ontologies were accessible through ontology browsers (onvarious laptops in the room that could be displayed), and the upper level ontologies were onthe web. These were all displayed on Screen 1 (see Figure 1) as required.Mifflin’s ‘agenda map’ set a visual compass for the material to be covered over the day-longworkshop (Figure 5).Figure 5: The agenda map in Mifflin specifying the ontology classes that have been agreed,and now need to be designed.On Screen 2 (see Figure 1), free-flowing discussion about a class was mapped and displayedin Mifflin (e.g. Figure 6 on Information Bearing Object).Figure 6: Dialog Map of free-flowing discussion about the ontology.Mifflin was used not only to capture/mediate free-flowing discussion as in Dialog Mapping,but following the Compendium approach of embodying a formal methodology withinMifflin’s simple Question/Answer notation, each unspecified element in the ontology becamea specific type of Question node (e.g. Subclass?, Slots?), answers to which were constrainedto legitimate ontology entities (classes; slotnames), at least, as far as those present could tellat that moment (some changes were still required when it came to implementation). Theassociated ontology structure was thus mapped, either linked directly to the discussion, placedunderneath it, or in a separate map, depending on size (e.g. Figure 7 shows the class structurefor People).Figure 7: Modelling the structure of the People class within the ontology, systematicallyusing Question nodes (Subclass?, Slots?) to open and complete discussion about eachunspecified element.As this structure was mapped in Mifflin and agreed, an ontology engineer also began to checkthis ‘on the fly’ in an ontology engineering environment on his laptop (WebOnto [1],periodically displayed on Screen 1). This more detailed work helped to verify answers toquestions that arose, and in some cases highlight issues that had not been addressed (Figure8).Figure 8: Checking the new ontology in a formal ontology engineering environment.The workshop concluded with agreement on the next steps to be taken (Figure 9).Figure 9: Wrapping up the workshop by agreeing on actions.Following the workshop, the agreed specification for the ontology was implemented(requiring further ‘cleaning’) in a formal ontology modelling language (OCML), and version1 of the AKT Reference Ontology was released. An HTML export from the OCMLenvironment was converted using D3E into a private project discussion document (Figure 10),which is the locus of all feedback from partners as they begin to build technologies on theontology, and new issues arise.Figure 10: The ontology from the workshop is published for feedback and further discussionas it is deployed.3        Reflections on CompendiumAlthough still at a relatively early stage, this work is starting to provide a non-trivial Mifflindatabase in support of a real system development project. Mifflin’s main functions in theproject to date have been to provide:∞ structure for face-to-face collaborative sensemaking: what needs to be tackled, whathas been tackled, what are the arguments, what are we agreeing?∞ the rationale for a (local) ontology engineer when implementing the agreedspecification∞ a memory aid for the group in meetings (facilitator brings up maps of previousdiscussions), and between meetings (facilitator circulates Mifflin maps of agreedaction items and responsibilities)∞ a memory aid for the facilitator to track decisions after meetings in order tocoordinate the projectThe following reflections on the process of using Compendium summarise where we have gotto in this case study, and are offered as contributions to the workshop’s discussions.Dialog Mapping interventions. Mifflin was used in this case firstly for what Jeff Conklincalls Dialog Mapping: facilitated, IBIS-based capture, display and reflection back toparticipants of their deliberations. As a facilitator who knew the participants reasonably well,and who was also coordinating the development of the AKTive Portal, I felt confident to chairthe meeting, push for clarification of contributions, and push for commitments to actionitems, all captured in Mifflin. In contrast, in other case studies Compendium practitionershave been brought in as outsiders who do not know the participants, and with littleunderstanding of the specific problem under discussion. The process-centric nature of theapproach is evident in that they report still being able to make valuable contributions to suchmeetings (although not always).Compendium interventions. The specifically Compendium-oriented aspect of this use ofMifflin was the additional constraining of the maps for modelling ontology class structuresusing Subclass? and Slots? Question nodes. This was understood and accepted by theparticipants without explanation. The resulting structures were not directly exported into theOCML/WebOnto ontology engineering environments, but transcribed. However, it is notclear at this point if much additional value would have been gained from some form ofMifflin-to-OCML export, since there remains significant modelling work to properly specifyan ontology that goes beyond what was captured in Mifflin in the meeting.‘Mifflin literacy’ and scepticism. The participants in the meetings described wereresearchers in knowledge-based technologies, and as such, extremely literate with formalknowledge representations (Mifflin would be considered semi-formal by this community).Interestingly, some members in this group had already expressed some scepticism aboutCompendium, similar to ‘more normal, less formal’ newcomers in other Compendium casestudies who are not used to having their discussions mediated and structured. By the end ofthe workshops reported, the scepticism had changed to enthusiasm, to the extent thatparticipants came to expect their contributions to be captured, and (half-jokingly) expressedconcern when I was not in the room.Placement of the Mifflin display screen. Although an apparently trivial point, in previoususes of Mifflin where the screen was positioned too far from the main screen, it felt moreawkward to direct attention to Mifflin. What counts as ‘too far’ depends on the orientation ofthe participants. Screen 2 (in Figure 1) could in fact be moved right next to Screen 1 if theflipchart between them was not in use.Compatibility with existing software tools. The importance of HACM tools beingcompatible with existing tools has already been proven in a previous case study [1], in whichMicrosoft Word and Visio diagrams were generated from constrained Compendium mapsdriven by specific questions. Mifflin’s Word import and HTML export has been used in thiscase, although it is fair to say that whilst very useful, these have not proven critical to thisproject so far. The Word import provides paragraph-level granularity tracing back to theimported source document (although we could of course implement this in other ways). TheHTML export has enabled us to rapidly publish Mifflin maps back to Word, and to the web,in particular, for discussion in D3E. This is useful for the simple reason that other participantsare not yet running Mifflin, and so depend on Word/HTML for their record. We do not knowif they have used Mifflin records themselves in this form, but think it unlikely to date (seeabove for Mifflin’s main role so far).We anticipate that the D3E sites will be extremely important as we move into longer termdeployment and revision of the ontology. It is our intention to implement a Mifflin importfilter that can convert the threaded web discussion back into a hypertext map, in order to‘complete the loop’ and support iterations from synchronous work (Mifflin), to asynchronous(D3E), and back again, providing a more complete group memory trace of all deliberations.This would be an example of what Engelbart has proposed as a Dynamic KnowledgeRepository.Issues concerning the ‘art and craft’ of Compendium practice. The workshop callhighlighted some specific questions concerning the difficulties that beginners often have inlearning to ‘do Compendium’ in meetings. “Nothing worthwhile comes for free” goes theadage, so what is the nature of the costs?∞ Literacy. I have written about this elsewhere using a literacy metaphor: we need topractise reading and writing in new notations and software environments, just as wehave practised reading and writing natural language prose from an early age. Todevelop this, once we have learned our ‘ABC’, we learn for the rest of our lives howto write effectively in different genres, and in different computer-supportedenvironments. I also find compelling the metaphors proposed by Conklin and Selvin,of mastering a musical instrument, or improvising in a band.∞ Cognitive overheads. My empirical studies of designers using the Xerox QOCnotation (an IBIS derivative) with pen and paper demonstrated the cognitiveergonomic challenge of chunking, naming, classifying and linking ideas, in real time,and in support of different modes of designing.∞ Personal confidence. One then needs to add to this the pressure of doing it in front ofpotentially sceptical peers, and in real meetings, and the obstacles can be intimidatingto the newcomer. Confidence needs to be built in safe spaces such as trainingworkshops, and in one’s own private space for personal work, or on a non-displayedlaptop in meetings, or post-hoc after meetings.∞ From white to black belt. There’s no doubt that an intuitive ability to sense what isgoing on a meeting, and make appropriate interventions, is required to work as a‘black belt’ practitioner. It is an interesting question to reflect on whether the IBISnotation itself provides leverage in this: that is, can someone learn to make goodinterventions more quickly when using IBIS, than without? There are certainly visualaffordances from dialogue maps that would suggest that this can indeed be possible(e.g. significant gaps). However, lower levels of practice are still possible simply bydriving a meeting from templates, which relieve the practitioner of much of thecognitive overhead by placing in external, visual memory much of representationalscaffolding required: what questions to ask, how to structure them, how to code themwith metadata, how to transclude them. Referring back to the workshop call, the roadto “jazz musician” may therefore involve going via “automobile repairman” (orperhaps “instrument repairman”), and far from being a waste of time, this journey iscrucial to really understanding your tools.4        AcknowledgementsThis work was funded in part by the Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT)Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (IRC), which is sponsored by the UK Engineeringand Physical Sciences Research Council under grant number GR/N15764/01. The AKT IRCcomprises the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Southampton and the OpenUniversity. We acknowledge the contributions of our colleagues to the AKT ReferenceOntology, which will be detailed in future documents.5        References[1] Domingue, J. (1998)  Tadzebao and WebOnto: Discussing, Browsing, and EditingOntologies on the Web. 11th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based SystemsWorkshop, April 18th-23rd. Banff, Canada.[2] Motta E. (1999). Reusable Components for Knowledge Modelling. IOS Press, Amsterdam,The Netherlands. ISBN: 1 58603 003 5. <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/motta/book/>[3] Selvin, A. M. and Buckingham Shum, S. J. (2002, in press). Rapid KnowledgeConstruction: A Case Study in Corporate Contingency Planning Using CollaborativeHypermedia. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9, (Issue 2) (April/June, 2002).<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=6242> PrePrint:<http://kmi.open.ac.uk/tr/abstracts/kmi-tr-92.html> 

Augmenting design deliberation with Compendium: the case of collaborative ontology design

Simon Buckingham Shum

Enrico Motta

John Domingue

CiteSeerX

Augmenting Design Deliberation with Compendium: The Case of Collaborative Ontology Design

http://oro.open.ac.uk/23343/1/OntoArgCompendium.pdf

Augmenting design deliberation with Compendium: the case of collaborative ontology design

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Research Online

CiteSeerX