From Semantic Portal Wiki
CSCI 6966 Advanced Semantic Web (Fall 2008)
- syllabus, announcements, presentations
- Lesson 1, Lesson 2, Lesson 3, Lesson 4, Lesson 5, Lesson 6,
- Lesson 7, Lesson 8, Lesson 9, Lesson 10, Lesson 11, Lesson 12, Lesson 13
A Question from Tim Lebo about Rahwan2007laying:
The authors chose to model their argument ontology in RDFS.
- Although this makes sense because of RDF's suitability for distributed augmentation of existing resources, how are the semantics of RDFS beneficial in this application? The authors restrict themselves to RDFS while wishing for disjointness.
- Why, in 2007, would an RDFS ontology developer choose not to use OWL? "Translating the ontology to more expressive Semantic Web ontology languages such as OWL can also enable ontological reasoning over argument structures, for example, to automatically classify arguments, or to identify semantic similarities among arguments."
- Could you suggest any examples for how (and why) arguments could be classified or similarities could be determined? The interfaces shown indicate a large jump from today's blogging to tomorrow WWAF.
- What kind of users would use the system the paper proposes? How much "argument theory" would they be expected to know? If a novice to "argument theory" used the system, how likely would their products align with the reasoning the system can provide? The system proposed involves adding additional explicit structure to the "blogging" of today.
- How far would a user need to decompose the free text, and how often would that granularity need to change as the argument evolves? At what point does the structure inhibit the thought process of the user?
Joshua Shinavier Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web
Facts about Rahwan2007laying question 1 by leboRDF feed
| A | Question + |
| About | Rahwan2007laying + |
| Author | Tim Lebo + |
| Question asked | The authors chose to model their argument … The authors chose to model their argument ontology in RDFS.
- Although this makes sense because of RDF's suitability for distributed augmentation of existing resources, how are the semantics of RDFS beneficial in this application? The authors restrict themselves to RDFS while wishing for disjointness.
- Why, in 2007, would an RDFS ontology developer choose not to use OWL? "Translating the ontology to more expressive Semantic Web ontology languages such as OWL can also enable ontological reasoning over argument structures, for example, to automatically classify arguments, or to identify semantic similarities among arguments."
- Could you suggest any examples for how (and why) arguments could be classified or similarities could be determined? The interfaces shown indicate a large jump from today's blogging to tomorrow WWAF.
- What kind of users would use the system the paper proposes? How much "argument theory" would they be expected to know? If a novice to "argument theory" used the system, how likely would their products align with the reasoning the system can provide? The system proposed involves adding additional explicit structure to the "blogging" of today.
- How far would a user need to decompose the free text, and how often would that granularity need to change as the argument evolves? At what point does the structure inhibit the thought process of the user?
e inhibit the thought process of the user? |
| Question asked by | Tim Lebo + |
| Question for the Presentation | Joshua Shinavier Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web + |
| Text | The authors chose to model their argument … The authors chose to model their argument ontology in RDFS.
Although this makes sense because of RDF's suitability for distributed augmentation of existing resources, how are the semantics of RDFS beneficial in this application? The authors restrict themselves to RDFS while wishing for disjointness.
Why, in 2007, would an RDFS ontology developer choose not to use OWL? "Translating the ontology to more expressive Semantic Web ontology languages such as OWL can also enable ontological reasoning over argument structures, for example, to automatically classify arguments, or to identify semantic similarities among arguments."
Could you suggest any examples for how (and why) arguments could be classified or similarities could be determined? The interfaces shown indicate a large jump from today's blogging to tomorrow WWAF.
What kind of users would use the system the paper proposes? How much "argument theory" would they be expected to know? If a novice to "argument theory" used the system, how likely would their products align with the reasoning the system can provide? The system proposed involves adding additional explicit structure to the "blogging" of today.
How far would a user need to decompose the free text, and how often would that granularity need to change as the argument evolves? At what point does the structure inhibit the thought process of the user? e inhibit the thought process of the user? |
