... another interesting site is: Mapping Great Debates
(http://www.macrovu.com/CCTGeneralInfo.html). - Let me explain what I meant
(illocutionary act) when I maintained that having a speech act ontology is
more important than having an IBIS ontology. I did not mean that it is more
important to have a speech act ontology instead of an IBIS ontology, though
it sure could be understood like that. What I meant is that it is better to
be able to express what one means and intends in connection with what one
says (and that's what I am doing right now using natural language) than to
merely be able of stating something (as in saying that speech act is more
important than IBIS). Contesting the assertion that speech act models are
more important than are IBIS models thus would be missing the point and is
an example of a communication fallacy that can be represented by (and might
rise in) an IBIS ontology and would have to be avoided using a speech act
ontology. - Another point is that to me it seems not to be sufficient to
just express a statement (be it true or false or neither true not false). We
discuss real world issues as well as fictitious scenarios (unreal worlds). I
guess that the OWL and the RDF are of no use here.
:-) Lars Ludwig
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jack Park [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Juli 2008 15:57
An: L. Ludwig
Cc: swikig@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de; Simon Buckingham Shum; Jeff Conklin
Betreff: Re: [swikig] swikig Digest, Vol 33, Issue 2
Lars, et al,
This is an interesting thread. I'd like to call your attention to a
group that is taking IBIS to the Web under the rubrics: global
sensemaking and hypermedia discourse. An entry point is
http://www.globalsensemaking.net/
The notion of applying a speech act ontology to model moves in
recorded (modeled) dialogues is an interesting one. I'm not sure I see
that as far more important than (I presume) the IBIS ontology; that
might be the key question in an IBIS discussion: Which is a more
valuable ontology: IBIS or Speech Acts in the context of recording
(facilitating) a dialogue? There might even be a better way to open
such a dialogue; after all, sensemaking is often about finding the best
question(s) to ask.
The Compendium Insitutute found at
http://compendiuim.open.ac.uk/institute/
is formed around such matters. Indeed, the Compendium (free, Java)
dialogue mapping tool uses a simple IBIS ontology; it would be valuable
to engage people such as Jeff Conklin and Simon Buckingham Shum in a
dialogue based on the suggestion made here. I suspect that, while I
would like to contest the assertion that speech act models are more
important than are IBIS models in the context of hypermedia discourse,
the assertion is nevertheless an important contribution to the field.
Cheers,
Jack
L. Ludwig wrote:
Well,
In ArtificialMemory, I have implemented an Issue-base Information System
(http://www.artificialmemory.net/artificialmemory.aspx?ID=17888VT)
ontology
some years ago. But, by now, I think that in order to represent a
discussion
it is far more important to have a speech act ontology and to support the
individually consistent expression of real and unreal statements. Besides
others.
:-) Lars Ludwig
--
// Message: 1
// Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:31:49 +0100
// From: Christoph LANGE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// Subject: [swikig] Cicero [Re: Argumentative (= semantic) discussions
//now in IkeWiki and SWiM]
// To: swikig@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
// Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
//
// Dear semantic wiki community,
//
// about one month ago I announced the implementation of argumentative
// discussions using the DILIGENT argumentation ontology in IkeWiki on
this
list.
// So far I thought that, besides the system presented in ?
//
// C. Tempich, E. Simperl, M. Luczak, R. Studer, and H. S. Pinto.
// Argumentation- based ontology engineering. IEEE Intelligent Systems,
// 22(6):52?59, 2007.
___
swikig mailing list
swikig@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/swikig
