More Related Content More from Simon Buckingham Shum (20) Knowledge Federation as Hypermedia Discourse1. Knowledge Federation 2008, Dubrovnik, 20-22 Oct
Knowledge Federation as
Hypermedia Discourse
Simon Buckingham Shum
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK
www.kmi.open.ac.uk/people/sbs
sbs@acm.org
Licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License
© Simon Buckingham Shum 1
2. About me
! Psychology -> Ergonomics -> Human-
Computer Interaction -> Hypermedia ->
Design Rationale -> Organisational
Memory -> Collaboration Tools ->
eLearning/ePublishing/eScience
--> Sensemaking and Collective
Intelligence
Work in Knowledge Media Institute
at Open U., Europe’s largest
university (>220,000 students/yr)
based in Milton Keynes
© Simon Buckingham Shum 2
4. Our context (1)
“I want to talk about the challenge of our generation. […] Our
challenge, our generation’s unique challenge, is learning to
live peacefully and sustainably in an extraordinarily crowded
world.
“The way of solving problems requires one fundamental
change, a big one, and that is learning that the challenges of
our generation are not us versus them, they are not us
versus Islam, us versus the terrorists, us versus Iran, they
are us, all of us together on this planet against a set of
shared and increasingly urgent problems.”
Je!rey Sachs: 2007 Reith Lectures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007
© Simon Buckingham Shum 4
5. Our context (2)
“With these “minds”, a person will be well equipped
to deal with what is expected, as well as with what
cannot be anticipated; without these minds, a
person will be at the mercy of forces that he or she
can’t understand, let alone control.
“The disciplined mind… the synthesizing mind…
the creating mind… the respectful mind… the
ethical mind.”
Howard Gardner: Five Minds for the Future.
Harvard Univ. Press, 2006: p.2
© Simon Buckingham Shum 5
7. What I may have to o!er…
Human-centred hypermedia
perspective on knowledge
structuring and its literacy
Some elements of
a prototype KF
infrastructure?
Access to communities and
research resources to
develop and test KF ideas
© Simon Buckingham Shum 7
9. Ideas…
Foundations for
Civilization…
Weapons of Mass
Destruction…
© Simon Buckingham Shum 9
12. Ideas…
Foundations for
Civilization…
Weapons of Mass
Destruction…
© Simon Buckingham Shum 12
15. Significance?…
= ?
http://flickr.com/photos/pewari/354960548
http://flickr.com/photos/voetmann/274550156
© http://flickr.com/photos/notorious_indian/540058288
Simon Buckingham Shum 15
17. Significance?…
=?
=? =?
=?
=? =?
=?
© Simon Buckingham Shum 17
20. Hypermedia Discourse Research
published claims
and arguments as
hypermedia
discourse
networks
Scaffold emergent
models of
contested worlds
by scaffolding
team deliberations discourse
as hypermedia about them…
discourse networks
© Simon Buckingham Shum 20
22. Sensemaking
“Sensemaking is about such things as
placement of items into frameworks,
comprehending, redressing surprise,
constructing meaning, interacting in pursuit
of mutual understanding, and patterning.”
Karl Weick, 1995, p.6
Sensemaking in Organizations
© Simon Buckingham Shum 22
24. In sensemaking communities
Ideas and ways to argue
truth/plausibility are of
first order importance
Representations
externalise and
distribute cognition,
mediate discourse,
negotiate boundaries
© Simon Buckingham Shum 24
25. In sensemaking communities
Ideas and ways to argue
truth/plausibility are of
first order importance
Representations
externalise and
distribute cognition,
mediate discourse,
negotiate boundaries
Arguably, social computing for
sensemaking will make it easy to share
and annotate representations and
overlay conceptual and social networks
© Simon Buckingham Shum 25
26. Knowledge Cartography
! “Maps are one of the oldest forms of human
communication. Map-making, like painting,
pre-dates both number systems and written
language. Primitive peoples made maps to
orientate themselves in both the living
environment and the spiritual worlds. Mapping
enabled them to transcend the limitations of
private, individual representations of terrain in
order to augment group planning, reasoning
and memory. Shared, visual representations
opened new possibilities for focusing collective
attention, re-living the past, envisaging new
scenarios, coordinating actions and making
decisions.” (Okada et al, 2008)
© Simon Buckingham Shum 26
27. Knowledge Cartography
1. Clarify the intellectual moves and
commitments at di!erent levels. (e.g. Which
concepts are seen as more abstract? What relationships
are legitimate? What are the key issues? What evidence is
being appealed to?)
2. Incorporate further contributions from others,
whether in agreement or not. The map is not
closed, but rather, has a!ordances designed to make it
easy for others to extend and restructure it.
3. Provoke, mediate, capture and improve
constructive discourse. This is central to
sensemaking in unfamiliar or contested domains, in which
the primary challenge is to construct plausible narratives
about how the world was, is, or might be, often in the
absence of complete, unambiguous data.
© Simon Buckingham Shum 27
29. In a nutshell…
Knowledge Federation research
has most value to add in
contested, poorly understood
domains
We have
to talk…
KF infrastructure is intrinsically
Social as well as Technical.
We need to understand the di!erent
kinds of discourse we must support
© Simon Buckingham Shum 29
31. • personal or group
concept mapping
• real time meeting
Compendium capture
• participatory modelling
• discourse as semantic
hypertext
33. Key elements of Compendium
• Shared visual display
• Simple notation
• Template patterns
• Node transclusions
Knowledge • Tagging
• Hypermedia
Media • Interoperability with
other data, services
and user interfaces
Modelling Practitioner skills
Frameworks e.g.
• Cognitive skills to chunk and link ideas
e.g. (Buckingham Shum)
• IBIS • Dialogue Mapping (Conklin)
• CommonKADS • Conversational Modelling (Sierhuis & Selvin)
• World Modelling
• Participatory Hypermedia Construction
• Critical Systems Heuristics (Selvin)
© Simon Buckingham Shum 33
40. Generating
Custom
Documents and
Diagrams from
Compendium
Templates
Field
Integrated/ Deviations/ Specific Installation Assignable
Approvals Revised Changes Assignments Details/ Inventory
Requirements (Engr Sched) /Assignment Specs/NDO Notice (E1)
List
Build
Assignable
Inventory
Assignable
Inventory
© Simon Buckingham Shum 40
41. Structure management in Compendium
! Associative linking
nodes in a shared context connected by graphical Map links
! Categorical membership
nodes in di!erent contexts connected by common attributes via metadata Tags
! Hypertextual Transclusion
reuse of the same node in di!erent views
! Templates
reuse of the same structure in di!erent views
! HTML, XML and RDF data exports for interoperability
! Java and SQL interfaces to add services
© Simon Buckingham Shum 41
42. Heuristic for balanced Dialogue Mapping
(from Je! Conklin’s book “Dialogue Mapping”, 2003)
© Simon Buckingham Shum 42
43. Using Compendium for personnel
recovery planning
Example of Conversational Modelling:
real time dialogue mapping combined with model driven
templates (AI+IA)
Co-OPR Project (with Austin Tate):
http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/co-opr
44. Mission Briefing: Intent template
Answers to template issues
provided in the JTFC Briefing.
Answers may be constrained
by predefined options, as
specified in the XML schema
© Simon Buckingham Shum 44
46. Planning Engine input to Compendium
Issues on which the
I-X planning engine
provided candidate
Options
© Simon Buckingham Shum 46
47. Modelling a document corpus:
The Iraq Debate
© Simon Buckingham Shum http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/compendium/iraq
47
48. Annotating a document corpus:
Chomsky’s article in the Iraq Debate
© Simon Buckingham Shum http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/compendium/iraq
48
49. Large scale NASA e-science field trials:
Interoperability with other databases, software
agents and collaboration tools
www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/coakting/nasa
Clancey, W.J., Sierhuis, M., Alena, R., Berrios, D., Dowding, J., Graham, J.S., Tyree, K.S., Hirsh,
R.L., Garry, W.B., Semple, A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Shadbolt, N. and Rupert, S. (2005).
“Automating CapCom Using Mobile Agents and Robotic Assistants.” 1st Space Exploration
Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 31 Jan-1 Feb, 2005, Orlando,
FL. Available from: AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc [CD-ROM]: Reston, VA, and as Advanced
Knowledge Technologies ePrint 375: http://eprints.aktors.org/375
50. © Simon Buckingham Shum 50
Image Credits--- Mars: NASA/JPL/MSSS; Earth: NASA/JSC; Composite: MSSS
51. NASA e-science field trials (2004 and 2005)
Distributed Mars-Earth planning and data analysis tools
for Mars Habitat field trial in Utah desert, supported from US+UK
© Simon Buckingham Shum www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/coakting/nasa
51
53. Collaboration Configuration
Compendium used as a collaboration medium at all intersections:
humans+agents, reading+writing maps
Scientist Software Agent
(Earth) Architecture
(Mars)
Scientist Scientist Scientist Scientist
(Earth) (Earth) (Mars) (Mars)
RST-telecon-2005-04-11.i.avi
00:49:08
© Simon Buckingham Shum 53
54. NASA testbed:
Compendium activity plans for surface exploration, constructed by
scientists on ‘Earth’, interpreted by software agents on ‘Mars’
Copyright, 2004,
RIACS/NASA Ames, Open
University, Southampton
University
Not to be used without
permission
The Compendium nodes and relationships in this plan were interpreted by Brahms software agents for monitoring
and coordinating astronaut and robot activity during surface explorations.
RST-telecon-2005-04-11.i.avi
© Simon Buckingham Shum 54
1:11:57
55. CoAKTinG NASA testbed:
Compendium science data map, generated by software agents, for
interpretation by Mars+Earth scientists
Copyright, 2004,
RIACS/NASA Ames, Open
University, Southampton
University
Not to be used without
permission
The Compendium maps were autonomously created and populated with science data by Brahms software agents that use models of the
© Simon Buckingham work process, data flow and science data relationships to create the maps.
mission plan, Shum 55
56. CoAKTinG NASA testbed:
Compendium-based photo analysis by geologists on ‘Mars’
Copyright, 2004,
RIACS/NASA Ames,
Open University,
Southampton
University
Not to be used
© Simon Buckingham Shum without permission
56
57. NASA testbed:
Compendium scientific feedback map from Earth scientists to
Mars colleagues
Copyright, 2004,
RIACS/NASA Ames,
Open University,
Southampton
University
Not to be used
© Simon Buckingham Shum without permission
57
58. Using Compendium to map
and automatically index
replayable video conferences
CoAKTinG Project: www.aktors.org/coakting
Memetic Project: www.memetic-vre.net
e-Dance project: kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/e-dance
59. Collaborative sensemaking in e-Science:
Meeting Replay tool for Earth scientists, synchronising
video of Mars crew’s discussion as they annotate their mission plans
Copyright, 2004,
RIACS/NASA Ames, Open
University, Southampton
University
Not to be used without
permission
NASA MR Clip: 00:50
© Simon Buckingham Shum 59
60. Memetic Meeting Replay
The CoAKTinG project’s results are now mainstreamed in the Access
Grid by the JISC Memetic VRE project
© Simon Buckingham Shum 60
61. Memetic Meeting Replay
The CoAKTinG project’s results are now mainstreamed in the Access
Grid by the JISC Memetic VRE project
© Simon Buckingham Shum 61
65. Literacy: Cognitive task analysis
! Cognitive tasks involved in using a graphical
argumentation scheme (Buckingham Shum 1996)
! A!ordances of graphical DR for coordinating
group design (Buckingham Shum et al 1997)
66. Literacy: the craft skill of IBIS mapping in
meetings: “Dialogue Mapping”
Je! Conklin:
CogNexus Institute:
www.CogNexus.org
© Simon Buckingham Shum 66
67. Literacy: expertise analysis
(Albert Selvin)
! What is the nature of expert human performance in creating
and modifying real time conceptual structures for groups?
! The NASA knowledge mapper role: Conventional
! Listening and interpreting facilitation
! Intervening in ‘normal’ conversation flow
skills
! Getting validation for captured material
! Building hypertext representations on Knowledge
the fly media
! Interrelating data and objects facilitation
! Adding metadata skills
! Software-specific skills
Aesthetic and Ethical Implications of Participatory Hypermedia Practice: First Year Report
Selvin, A. (2005), Technical Report KMI-05-17, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK
© Simon Buckingham Shum 67
68. • Web publishing of
Scholarly scholarly claims and
Ontologies argumentation
• discourse as semantic
Project hypertext
Will scientific publishing in 2020 still depend solely on the
reading, writing, and discovery of written texts?
What might a more network-centric complement look like?
69. In Gutenberg’s shadow
(or standing on his shoulders)
Newspapers + Invisible Colleges = Scholarly Journals
Le Journal des Sçavans Philosophical Transactions of
January 1665 the Royal Society of London
© Simon Buckingham Shum
March 1665 69
70. Jumping forward 343 years…
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Digital Research Discourse? Computational Thinking Seminar Series, School of Informatics,
University of Edinburgh, 25 Apr. 2007. http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse/docs/Simon-Edin-CompThink.pdf
© Simon Buckingham Shum 70
72. What if we could get search results like this?…
“What is the Turing Debate?”
One of seven maps in the Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? Series.
MacroVU Press. www.macrovu.com (Horn, 2003; Yoshimi, 2006)
© Simon Buckingham Shum 72
74. Beyond document citations…
These annotations are freeform summaries
of an idea, as one would find in researchers’
Making formal connections
journals, fieldnotes, lit. review notes or
between ideas creates a
blog entries
semantic citation network —>
novel literature navigation,
“People try to maximise querying and visualization
their rate of gaining
“Information scent
information”
models”
Method
“Web User Flow by
applies
Theory “Information
Information Scent foraging
(WUFIS)” Claim theory”
?
Paper: “The Scent of a Site: A System for
Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent,
Usage, and Usability of a Web Site”
Addressable triple which can be contested
Paper: “Information
e.g. supported/challenged foraging”
© Simon Buckingham Shum 74
75. Scholarly discourse as CKS…
Connecting freeform tags with naturalistic connections (“dialects”)
grounded in a formal set of relations (from semiotics and coherence relations)
© Simon Buckingham Shum 75
76. How to help scholars engage in CKS?
Pilot study: paper-based literature modelling
S. Buckingham Shum, V. Uren, G. Li, B. Sereno, and C. Mancini. Computational Modelling of Naturalistic Argumentation in Research
Literatures: Representation and Interaction Design Issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):17–47, 2006
© Simon Buckingham Shum 76
77. How to help scholars engage in CKS?
From paper prototype to semiformal mapping tool
! The ClaiMapper tool
Starting from paper-based modelling,
move from literature sketches…
…to formal argument maps
Evaluated in: V. Uren, S. Buckingham Shum, G. Li, and M. Bachler. Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and
User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5):420–445, 2006
© Simon Buckingham Shum 77
78. How to help scholars engage in CKS?
Pilot study: paper-based annotation
Pilot study reported in: B. Sereno, S. Buckingham Shum, and E. Motta. (2005). ClaimSpotter: an Environment to Support
Sensemaking with Knowledge Triples. Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 199–206, ACM
© Simon Buckingham Shum 78
79. How to help scholars engage in CKS?
! The ClaimSpotter annotation tool: Web 2.0-style tagging with
optional community/system tag recommendations
© Simon Buckingham Shum 79
80. “Semantic del.icio.us”: KMi’s ClaimSpotter
assigning and linking freeform tags
Sereno, B., Buckingham Shum, S. and Motta, E. (2007). Formalization, User Strategy and Interaction Design: Users’ Behaviour with Discourse Tagging
Semantics. Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge, 16th Int. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), Banff, 8-12
May 2007. http://www2007.org/workshops/paper_30.pdf
© Simon Buckingham Shum 80
81. Interaction Design
how behaviour is shaped by the tool’s a!ordances
! ‘Flip’ left/right tags to match the link type
© Simon Buckingham Shum 81
82. Visualising claims and arguments
When multiple
analysts annotate web
documents via a
server, they can
generate a shared
view of how they see
the field, and where
they agree/disagree
© Simon Buckingham Shum claimfinder.open.ac.uk 82
84. Semantic Literature Analysis [ClaimFinder expt: 1:59:17]
Problem: “What advantages and disadvantages does CiteSeer
have compared to the ISI citation databases?”
Victoria Uren, Simon Buckingham Shum, Michelle Bachler, Gary Li, (2006) Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures:
Design, Implementation and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol.64, 5, (420-445).
© Simon Buckingham Shum 84
85. “What papers contrast with this paper?”
1. Extract concepts for this document
2. Trace concepts on which they build
3. Trace concepts challenging this set
4. Show root documents
© Simon Buckingham Shum 85
86. Focusing on a concept
incoming+outgoing links
© Simon Buckingham Shum 86
88. Lineage tree (the roots of a concept)
© Simon Buckingham Shum 88
90. Indicators of ClaiMaker literacy?
Victoria Uren, Simon Buckingham Shum, Michelle Bachler, Gary Li, (2006) Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research
Literatures: Design, Implementation and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol.64, 5, (420-445).
© Simon Buckingham Shum 90
91. Example: ‘argumentation’ on YouTube
Movie posted by
National Front on
YouTube to
demonstrate their
activities
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical
Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007
http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm
© Simon Buckingham Shum 91
92. Example: a “scientific argument” on
National Front website
www.natfront.com/prejudic.html
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical
Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007
http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm
© Simon Buckingham Shum 92
93. Mapping the
structure of the
National Front’s
“negro intelligence”
argument
© Simon Buckingham Shum 93
94. Refuting the NF “negro intelligence”
argument using argument mapping
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical
Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007
http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm
© Simon Buckingham Shum 94
95. Refuting the NF “negro intelligence”
argument using argument mapping
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical
Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007
http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm
© Simon Buckingham Shum 95
97. Refuting the NF “negro intelligence”
argument using argument mapping
The structure of an “Argument from
Bias” can be exposed..
The structure of an “Argument from
Analogy” can be exposed..
© Simon Buckingham Shum 97
98. Template for an
“Argument from
Analogy”
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical
Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007
http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm
© Simon Buckingham Shum 98
99. Template for an
“Argument from
Analogy”
Instantiating the
“Argument from
Analogy” template
© Simon Buckingham Shum 99
101. Ideas as embeddable social objects,
overlayed on a social network
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/sbs/2008/10/science-web2-social-notworking
cohereweb.net
© Simon Buckingham Shum 101
102. Sensemaking on the Social Web
! Connected via the Open U’s SocialLearn API, they could
smoothly exchange important learner-centric data
API
API
API
API
© Simon Buckingham Shum 102
103. SocialLearn - from 30,000 feet…
Micro
2Learner
Learner
micro-blog your manage your
thoughts, learning goals
learning goals
• Identity
and resources SocialLearn • Portfolio
server • Activity History
and Website • Social Network
Cohere
cohereweb.net
manage connections
between learning
goals/resources/ideas
© Simon Buckingham Shum 103
105. Visual software for dialogue and
sensemaking
! International Labour Organisation: The UN
specialized agency promoting social justice
and human and labour rights
! Annual Learning Conference to review its
HIV/AIDS in the Workplace Programme
! Compendium was used to capture, integrate
and annotate a week’s discussions sharing
and debating best practices, creating a visual
Web database
© Simon Buckingham Shum 105
107. ! World Vision International: global relief and
development agency
! Reviewing its quality control programme through
an international series of workshops
! Compendium was used to classify and connect the
key ideas creating a visual Web database
© Simon Buckingham Shum 107
110. Global Sensemaking network
! www.GlobalSensemaking.net
! Online deliberation
technology
! Particular focus on climate
change
© Simon Buckingham Shum 110
111. ESSENCE:
E-Science/Sensemaking/Climate Change
! Challenge: bring together deliberation tool
developers/researchers* with climate change
experts
! Engage in meaningful debate
! Reflect on process at f-f conference (Apr 2009)
! Improve how climate science debate is conducted
! www.GlobalSensemaking.net
© Simon Buckingham Shum 111
112. OLnet:
Open Learning Network (proposal under review)
! Challenge: develop a sociotechnical infrastructure
to catalyse and sca!old an emergent research
community
! Domain: Open Educ. Resources
! How to nurture social and conceptual networks to
pool our collective intelligence in a field?
! Go beyond wikis or Freebase
! Layers of evidence in di!erent modalities
! Explicit support for contesting claims
© Simon Buckingham Shum 112
114. In conclusion…
! YES… we are certainly interested in improving information
management, sharpening critical thinking and promoting sound
argumentation
! BUT… these are only part of the story. Those who are engaged in
conflict resolution remind us that the key to making true progress
is to establish the context for open dialogue in which stakeholders
learn to listen to each other properly, and co-construct new
realities (Isaacs, 1999; Kahane, 2004).
! We need both critical thinking and open listening as we strive
collectively to make sense of, and act on, the complexities and
controversies now facing us.
© Simon Buckingham Shum 114