Lars, Thanks for the clarification. I feel much better now ;-) Finding improved ways to augment our ability to conduct discourse online is always a contribution. If there is evidence that inclusion of speech act models in the mix is beneficial, then I'm happy to learn more about that. Can you point to some papers that support your assertions?
Speaking of great debates online, take a look at http://cci.mit.edu/collaboratorium.pdf Cheers Jack L. Ludwig wrote: > ... 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
