#+STARTUP: beamer
#+TITLE: Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation
#+AUTHOR: Simon Buckingham Shum
#+LaTeX_CLASS: beamer
#+LaTeX_CLASS_OPTIONS: [presentation]
#+BEAMER_FRAME_LEVEL: 2

#+BEAMER_HEADER_EXTRA: \usetheme{Szeged}\usecolortheme{wolverine}\institute{Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK}
#+COLUMNS: %45ITEM %10BEAMER_env(Env) %10BEAMER_envargs(Env Args) %4BEAMER_col(Col) %8BEAMER_extra(Extra)
#+PROPERTY: BEAMER_col_ALL 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 :ETC

* Context

** What is argumentation software? 

*** *mapping* an argument					      :BMCOL:
:PROPERTIES:
:BEAMER_col: 0.5
:BEAMER_envargs: C[T]
:END:

**** exposing its structure

***** typically in graph form

*** for the purposes of this talk
# I was going to say "typically" here, but I've only read 4-5 papers
# in this area, so I can't be sure that it's typical. But that's how
# it seems to me.

**** *manual* data entry

***** not extraction

**** can relate back to sources

***** links

***** video timestamps

*** 							     :B_figure:BMCOL: :BMCOL:B_figure:
    :PROPERTIES:
    :BEAMER_col: 0.5
    :BEAMER_env: figure
    :END:
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{What_the_Bible_says.jpg}

*** optionally

**** *queries* for sub-arguments

**** *multiple* I/O styles

***** directed graph

***** textual outline

**** *collaborative editing*

** Why use argumentation software?

*** example: climate change debates

*** large and complex

*** interdisciplinary

**** science

**** politics

**** economics

**** ethics

*** timely

**** Copenhagen conference

***** G77 delegates walk out

*** relevant to Cohere

**** ESSENCE project

** How might argumentation software help?

*** could make large, complex arguments

**** easier to navigate?

**** easier to search?

**** quicker to grasp?

***** or maybe /think/ you've grasped!

**** less repetitive

***** but Flat Earthers still exist

*** propagate updates in knowledge faster?

**** propagate lies and stupid ideas faster?

*** make debate more meritocratic?

**** "blogging will level the playing field" all over again?

** What does this sound like?

*** Wikipedia

**** similar advantages have been attributed to it

*** Is argumentation software reinventing the wheel?

**** inaccessibility of WP technical & scientific articles

**** different goals and value systems

***** WP: "Neutral Point of View" allows "he said / she said"

***** WP: Reliable Sources and Notability

***** WP: info not systematically structured along debate lines

* The paper

** Introduction

*** Motivation

**** 								:B_quotation:
     :PROPERTIES:
     :BEAMER_env: quotation
     :END:
The context in which we find ourselves presents problems on a global scale which will
require negotiation and collaboration across national, cultural and intellectual
boundaries.

*** Differences from related work

**** distributed vs team-based

**** asynchronous vs real-time

**** introducing Web 2.0 principles

** Web 2.0 according to Buckingham Shum

*** Some have dismissed as marketing term

*** Four relevant elements

**** Simple but engaging multimedia UIs

***** Web UIs should stand on a par with desktop UIs

**** Emergent, not predefined, structure and semantics

***** let users define their own classification schemes

***** lightweight approaches (tags for blogs, social tagging) have good uptake

**** Social networks

***** status updates, friend recommendations, "reputation" indices

**** Data interop, mashups and embedding

** Cohere data model

*** 								   :B_figure:
    :PROPERTIES:
    :BEAMER_env: figure
    :END:
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{Cohere-data-model.png}

** Web 2.0-ish features

*** Emergent structure

**** Users can add own relation types

***** but seed data & autocompletion used to "nudge" users

*** Social

**** each idea links back to creating user

**** Future / in development

***** sitewide feeds (like Twitter's "everyone")

***** active user stats

***** notification when your idea is connected to someone else's

***** notification when your idea is embedded in another website

***** different views for when multiple people work on one idea (vague)

** Interop

*** XML-based feeds (RSS/Atom)

*** high level of addressability

**** almost everything has a unique URL

***** allows embedding using HTML iframes

*** import from Compendium offline argumentation tool

*** Future

**** export in a "variety of formats"