Bertrand Sereno

Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues

This article characterizes key weaknesses in the ability of current digital libraries to support scholarly inquiry, and as a way to address these, proposes computational services grounded in semiformal models of the naturalistic argumentation commonly found in research literatures. It is argued that a design priority is to balance formal expressiveness with usability, making it critical to coevolve the modeling scheme with appropriate user interfaces for argument construction and analysis. We specify the requirements for an argument modeling scheme for use by untrained researchers and describe the resulting ontology, contrasting it with other domain modeling and semantic web approaches, before discussing passive and intelligent user interfaces designed to support analysts in the construction, navigation, and analysis of scholarly argument structures in a Web‐based environment.

ClaimSpotter: an environment to support sensemaking with knowledge triples

Annotating a document with an interpretation of its contents raises a number of challenges that we are hoping to address via the creation of a supporting environment. We present these challenges and motivate an approach based on the notion of suggestions to support document annotation, hoping these suggestions would act as leads to follow for annotators, therefore reducing some of the difficulties inherent to the task. The environment resulting from this approach, ClaimSpotter, is presented. Aspects of its evaluation are also given, using the findings of a study involving a group of participants faced with a document annotation task.

Enhancing social interaction in competence development networks: a conceptual framework

Angehrn, A. A., Maxwell, K., & Sereno, B. (revised version). Enhancing Social Interaction in Competence Development Networks: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Learning Technology.

Semantic Annotation Support in the Absence of Consensus

We are interested in the annotation of knowledge which does not necessarily require a consensus. Scholarly debate is an example of such a category of knowledge where disagreement and contest are widespread and desirable, and unlike many Semantic Web approaches, we are interested in the capture and the compilation of these conflicting viewpoints and perspectives. The Scholarly Ontologies project provides the underlying formalism to represent this meta-knowledge, and we will look at ways to lighten the burden of its creation. After having described some particularities of this kind of knowledge, we introduce ClaimSpotter, our approach to support its ‘capture’, based on the elicitation of a number of recommendations which are presented for consideration to our annotators (or analysts), and give some elements of evaluation.