cerutti--nmr 2010

University of BresciaDepartment of Information Engineering

Knowledge Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction Research Group

© 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

From User­Generated Tagging From User­Generated Tagging to User­Agreed Knowledge:to User­Agreed Knowledge:An Argumentation­Based An Argumentation­Based 

Approach Approach 

Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Daniela Fogli,

Claudio Gandelli, Massimiliano Giacomin

Slide 2 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

A Web 2.0 scenario

Slide 3 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

MaryCarl John

A Web 2.0 scenario

I heard a slaty-backed gull

in Boulder

It's impossible!Those gulls are indigenous

of East Asia

You are wrong!Look at youtube!

I agree with Mary.

Look at local press.

All right... I'm wrong.

1

2

3

4

5

Slide 4 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

A Web 2.0 scenario:Pros/Cons

Ambiguity, imprecision, lack of relationships,

poor content findability

Quick, close to users' experience Who says what?

Pro or against who/what?Who wins?

How this dialogue affect tags?Does this dialogue provide

new knowledge?

Slide 5 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

Keep pros, overcome cons:a demonomy

A shared unambiguous dictionary Formal relationships among tags “Unquestionable” knowledge

An arena Opinion exchanging Formal dialogue, as close as possible to users' experience Defeasible knowledge Can also enrich the knowledge provided by the shared

dictionary

Slide 6 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

The shared unambiguous dictionary: Gull

Wordnet graphical representation by visuwords.com

Legend

Slide 7 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

The shared unambiguous dictionary: Slaty-backed Gull

Slide 8 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

The defeasible knowledge

Object(sound, image, document…)

Tag(<gull>, <slaty-backed gull>…)

Tagrelationship

Dictionary term(<gull, seagull>…)

Semanticrelationship

Slide 9 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

The defeasible knowledge in the example

Unquestionable knowledge There is the sound (an object) X There is a dictionary term <gull, seagull>

Questionable knowledge tag(X, <gull, seagull>) tag(X, <slaty-backed gull>) sem(<slaty-backed gull>, <gull, seagull>, hyperonomy)

How can we codify and question this knowledge?

Slide 10 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

“Classic” Argumentation Scheme John's statements

Arg1 [From Appearance](Premise) This object looks like it could be classified under verbal category <gull> (C)(Conclusion) Therefore, this object can be classified under verbal category <gull> (C)

Arg3 [From Def. to verbal classification](Definition Premise) <slaty-backed gull> (a) fits definition <large gull...> (D)(Premise) For all x, if x fits definition D, then x can be classified as having property <hyperonomy of D> (G)(Conclusion) a has property G

(CQ1) Could the appearance of its looking like it could be classified under C be misleading for some reason?(CQ2) Although it may look like it can be classified under C, could there be grounds for indicating that it might be more justifiable to classify it under another category D?

tag(X, <gull, seagull>) sem(<slaty-backed gull>, <gull, seagull>, hyperonomy)

Arg2 [From Appearance](Premise) This object looks like it could be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>(Conclusion) Therefore, this object can be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>

tag(X, <slaty-backed gull>)

(CQ1) Could the appearance of its looking like it could be classified under C be misleading for some reason?(CQ2) Although it may look like it can be classified under C, could there be grounds for indicating that it might be more justifiable to classify it under another category D?

(CQ1) What evidence is there that D is an adequate definition, in light of other possible alternative definition that might exclude a's having G?(CQ2) Is the verbal classification in the classification premise based merely on a stipulative or biased definition that is subject to doubt?

Slide 11 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

“Classic” Argumentation SchemeMary's critique

Arg2 [From Appearance](Premise) This object looks like it could be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>(Conclusion) Therefore, this object can be classified under verbal category <slaty-backed gull>

(CQ1) Could the appearance of its looking like it could be classified under C be misleading for some reason?(CQ2) Although it may look like it can be classified under C, could there be grounds for indicating that it might be more justifiable to classify it under another category D?

Arg4 [From Position to Know](Major Premise) Source <Mary> (a) is in position to know about things in a certain subject domain <ornithology> (D) containing proposition <Slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia, therefore a specimen of this species cannot be on North America> (A)(Minor Premise) a asserts that A is true(Conclusion) A is true

(CQ1) Is a in position to know whether A is true?(CQ2) Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source?(CQ3) Dis a assert that A is true?

Slide 12 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

“Classic” Argumentation SchemeJohn's answer

Arg5 [From Expert Opinion](Major Premise) Source <youtube...> (E) is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A(Minor premise) E asserts that proposition A is true(Conclusion) A is true

(CQ1) How credible is E as an expert source?(CQ2) Is E an expert in the field that is in?(CQ3) What did E assert that implies A?(CQ4) Is E personally reliable as a source?(CQ5) Is A consistent with what other experts assert?(CQ6) Is E's assertion based on evidence?

(CQ1) Is a in position to know whether A is true?(CQ2) Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source?(CQ3) Dis a assert that A is true?

Arg4 [From Position to Know](Major Premise) Source <Mary> (a) is in position to know about things in a certain subject domain <ornithology> (D) containing proposition <Slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia, therefore a specimen of this species cannot be on North America> (A)(Minor Premise) a asserts that A is true(Conclusion) A is true

Slide 13 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

“Classic” Argumentation SchemeCarl's claim

Arg5 [From Expert Opinion](Major Premise) Source <youtube...> (E) is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A(Minor premise) E asserts that proposition A is true(Conclusion) A is true

(CQ1) How credible is E as an expert source?(CQ2) Is E an expert in the field that is in?(CQ3) What did E assert that implies A?(CQ4) Is E personally reliable as a source?(CQ5) Is A consistent with what other experts assert?(CQ6) Is E's assertion based on evidence?

Arg6 [From Expert Opinion](Major Premise) Source <local press> (E) is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A(Minor premise) E asserts that proposition A is true(Conclusion) A is true

(CQ1) How credible is E as an expert source?(CQ2) Is E an expert in the field that is in?(CQ3) What did E assert that implies A?(CQ4) Is E personally reliable as a source?(CQ5) Is A consistent with what other experts assert?(CQ6) Is E's assertion based on evidence?

Slide 14 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

Problematic issues due to the Web Naïve Users

Users do not know what they want to express Users do not know how they should express what

they want Users do not know how to critique other users

Analise the knowledge the users want to share Provide a simplified version of reasoning pattern Balance the burden of proof (avoid fallacious, but

likely in this context, arguments and attacks)

Slide 15 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationRequirements

1 Easy and close to user' experience2 The less knowledge is required, the more it is

appreciated3 Arguments and critiques should be generated in

an obfuscated (for the users) way4 Every user is committed to justify his/her

counterargument5 Automatic evaluation of the acceptability of

arguments through semantics analysis

Slide 16 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe Goal

Arg2...

Arg4...

Arg2 Arg4GroundedExtension

Slide 17 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationArguments (1)

Arg1 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <gull, seagull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Arg2 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <slaty-backed gull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Slide 18 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationArguments (2)

Arg3 [AUDR]User <john> says that the word <slaty-backed gull> (W) is related to the synset <gull, seagull> (S) according to the <hyponomy> (R) relation, so, the relation R has been added between W and S.

Slide 19 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationCounterarguments (1)

AUT

Why do you say IC1?

Your ownjustification?

Have you got somesort of proof?

Do you know an external informationsource that contradicts user’s claim?

AUDR

Why do you say IC1?

Your ownjustification?

Have you got somesort of proof?

Do you know an external informationsource that contradicts user’s claim?

Slide 20 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationCounterarguments (2)

Arg4 [APK]User <mary> (u) knows that <slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia> (C) holds, and, from C, u derives that <”slaty-backed gull” is not related to “seagull” sound> (a) holds. So it should be the case that a.

Slide 21 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationCounterarguments (3)

Arg5 [ASK]The user <john> says that, acording to the source of knowledge <youtube> (S), it holds that <fromthe fact that the slaty-backed gull is indigenous to East Asia we cannot know that “slaty-backed gull” tag is not related to “seagull” sound> (a). So, it should be the case that a.

Arg6 [ASK]The user <carl> says that, acording to the source of knowledge <local press> (S), it holds that <”youtube” is not credible as a source of knowledge> (a). So, it should be the case that a.

Slide 22 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe graph for (counter)arguments (1)

Arg2

Arg1 Arg3`

`

`

Slide 23 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe graph for (counter)arguments (2)

Arg4

Arg2

Slide 24 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe graph for (counter)arguments (3)

Arg4Arg5

Slide 25 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe graph for counterarguments (4)

Arg6 Arg5

Slide 26 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationDialogue as arguments exchange

A dialogue as a sequence of commitments: Propositional commitments

Critique commitments

Slide 27 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationDialogue protocol

Slide 28 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe dialogue in the example

Slide 29 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationDetermine the dialogue outcome

Slide 30 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

User-centred argumentationThe dialogue outcome

Arg1 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <gull, seagull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Arg2 [AUT]User <john> says that the tag <slaty-backed gull> (T) is related to the content of the sound <seagull> (S), so, the tag T has been added to S sound.

Arg3 [AUDR]User <john> says that the word <slaty-backed gull> (W) is related to the synset <gull, seagull> (S) according to the <hyponomy> (R) relation, so, the relation R has been added between W and S.

Arg4 [APK]User <mary> (u) knows that <slaty-backed gull is indigenous of East Asia> (C) holds, and, from C, u derives that <”slaty-backed gull” is not related to “seagull” sound> (a) holds. So it should be the case that a.

Arg5 [ASK]The user <john> says that, acording to the sourche of knowledge <youtube> (S), it holds that <fromthe fact that the slaty-backed gull is indigenous to East Asia we cannot know that “slaty-backed gull” tag is not related to “seagull” sound> (a). So, it should be the case that a.

Arg6 [ASK]The user <carl> says that, acording to the sourche of knowledge <local press> (S), it holds that <”youtube” is not credible as a source of knowledge> (a). So, it should be the case that a.

Slide 31 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

Result for the user

Slide 32 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

Conclusion

“Demonomy” Shared unambiguous dictionary An arena

User-centred argumentation A set of innovative reasoning patterns specifically

designed, in this case, for Web 2.0 Users formalised as argument schemes

The less knowledge required, the more appreciated Every user is committed to justify his/her counterargument Automatic evaluation of the justification status of

arguments through semantics analysis

Slide 33 © 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

Future works

More (and more general) argument schemes More (and more general) invalidity conditions Study and encompass more Web 2.0 users' needs Voting mechanism Running prototype

Users' evaluation Feedback about users' experience

© 2010 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>

From User-Generated Tagging to From User-Generated Tagging to User-Agreed Knowledge:User-Agreed Knowledge:

An Argumentation-Based Approach An Argumentation-Based Approach

Thank you