Games of Inquiry for Collaborative Concept Structuring

Tonkin

Virtual Communities

Self Cite

In this chapter, we examine the history and theory underlying social tagging as annotation: first from the perspective of classification research; and second from the perspectives of knowledge representation and knowledge management. Using the context meta-model of the annotation, we demonstrate that the model is adequately represented in existing KR theory: specifically, from the perspective of socially constructed meaning in community networks. Furthermore, the set of tagging representations (triadic networks of individual, object and annotation) are well explored throughout the knowledge representation domain. In contradistinction to many commentators, we conclude that social tagging may effectively be explored via a multidisciplinary approach linking knowledge representation and classification research and creating an open domain network.

Section: Self-organizing Social Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-Tagging in Context; Information Management across Community Networks

Tonkin

Virtual Communities

Self Cite

“…We have previously described a testbed context [see 15,17,18] in which the answers to such questions could be experimentally obtained, where tool versions would be proposed as hypothetical solutions and these predictions tested on real tasks to solve. As Peirce says: "the entire meaning of a hypothesis lies in its conditional…”

Section: Realism In the Context For Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

Building a Pragmatic Methodology for KR Tool Research and Development

Keeler

Conceptual Structures: Inspiration and Application

2006

Self Cite

Abstract.Reviewing the evidence of CG-tool research and development in conference papers, we find little attention devoted to the issues and institution of scientific methodology, and only vague awareness of how that deficiency impairs progress. To focus attention and improve awareness, we briefly delineate the evolution of C.S. Peirce's theory of inquiry toward Eduard Hovy's general methodology for research, tracing from Peirce's early pragmatism to his "conditional idealism." We claim that methodological theory suggests a pragmatic method for KR research and tool advancement, in the form of an open-ended game somewhat like a child's game of building blocks. The forms of the "blocks" would be propositional rather than physical, with conditional propositions establishing the "dimensions," in place of the physical dimensions of blocks. The constraints would be logical and evidential (factual) rather than geometrical and gravitational (forceful). We challenge the entire Conceptual Structures community to help build a truly pragmatic methodology.

“…Within the game framework (see Axelrod, 1984; Keeler, 2004; Keeler & Pfeiffer, 2005), tool users engaged in game‐playing, while tool developers engage in tournaments to capture the variety of possible tool strategies that might improve the users' game. The users' game involves their particular content knowledge and the collaborative evolution of its concepts.…”

Section: Testbed Games For Resource and Tool Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…to engage in collaborative discourse. By means of knowledge processing techniques in the game framework, valid collaborative hypotheses can be formulated from the contributions (see Keeler & Pfeiffer, 2005, for detailed scenario of scholars playing a digital manuscript game).…”

Section: Testbed Games For Resource and Tool Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Games for co‐evolution of digital resources and knowledge tools

Keeler

2006

Proc of Assoc for Info

Self Cite

Successful digital resources have resulted from effective partnerships among content experts and tool builders, but such relationships are difficult to establish.Collaboratory testbeds were originally conceived as a response to that difficulty, but have been largely unsuccessful. We contend that effective testbed partnerships are as essential for knowledge-tool advancement as that advancement is to the support of effective partnerships, since knowledge tools must evolve to augment rather than merely to replicate human inference. We are building a game framework as a method for instituting testbed partnerships and an architecture for modular knowledge-tool integration, as essential steps in the co-evolution of knowledge tools and digital resource testbeds. Collaboratory Testbeds ReconsideredMany promising knowledge tools are stranded at the end of their research and development cycles, waiting to be found by user communities. Meanwhile, digital resource developers struggle to find tools powerful enough and customizable enough to augment their development work and to support the evolution of research applications that rely on their resources. The collaboratory-testbed method of technology customization and transfer would be an appropriate solution, if it could be realized as originally conceived for evolving scientific resources. (see Lederberg & Uncapher, 1989 : 14).Testbeds were to support partnerships between users and technologists in exploring the utility of various technical approaches by which a scientist user-community could take advantage of emerging technology. In the virtual context of testbeds, scientist users could remotely collaborate to examine, calibrate, validate, and interpret some particular data content, while their technologist partners observed their work and introduced coordination technologies in experimental versions integrated for use in actual working contexts. The appropriate components of systems architecture and an array of tools for data access and communication would be designed and developed within a program of prototyping, testing, and evaluation that could support continuous improvement. Testbed participants were to be a sample group from the user community for whom collaboration support technology would be developed, and they were to be committed to work in partnerships with technologists who would be committed to work with them.Partners collaborating in testbeds were conceived to be geographically distributed, to represent a range of disciplines, and to be dedicated to a continuing study of what might improve the quality of both data content and testbed context. Testbed partners must be able to correlate and coordinate three basic realms of concern: the specific nature and uses of the content data, the computing context for collaboratively manipulating that content, and the continuing improvement of that collaborative context for that content manipulation. Based on game theoretical studies of how cooperation and coordination