摘要作为科学论文内容的组成部分，论证结构揭示了科学论文内的重要观点、结论及其论证过程，是论文内蕴含的一类重要隐性知识。规范描述和准确表征论文内的论证结构，对于科学论文的语义增强、语义检索和基于文献的知识发现具有重要意义。本文针对科学论文的论证结构，基于通用的论证理论，在复用多个出版物相关本体的基础上，构建了一个新颖的论证本体（scientific paper argumentation ontology，SAO），包括7个核心类、13个扩展类和15种关系。为了评估SAO本体的可用性，本研究选择图书情报与生物医学领域的40篇科学论文进行了语义标注应用实验。统计结果表明，SAO本体具有较强的论证单元和论证结构的表达能力，不同领域的科学论文的论证结构相似，但存在一定差异。
1 Renear A H, Palmer C L. Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing[J]. Science, 2009, 325(5942): 828-832. 2 Walton D, Zhang N N. The epistemology of scientific evidence[J]. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2013, 21(2): 173-219. 3 de Waard A. A pragmatic structure for research articles[C]// Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Pragmatic Web. New York: ACM Press, 2007: 83-89. 4 Ruiz-Iniesta A, Corcho O. A review of ontologies for describing scholarly and scientific documents[C]// Proceedings of the Conference the 4th Workshop on Semantic Publishing, 2014. 5 Clark T, Ciccarese P N, Goble C A. Micropublications: A semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications[J]. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 2014, 5(1): 1-33. 6 Vitali F, Peroni S. The argument model ontology[EB/OL]. [2019- 05-15]. http://www. essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel. 7 Schneider J, Groza T, Passant A. A review of argumentation for the social semantic web[J]. Semantic Web, 2013, 4(2): 159-218. 8 Toulmin S E. The uses of argument[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. 9 Carbogim D V, Robertson D, Lee J. Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering[J]. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 2000, 15(2): 119-149. 10 Kunz W, Rittel H W J. Issues as elements of information systems[M]. Berkeley: University of California, 1970. 11 Tweed C. Intelligent authoring and information system for regulatory codes and standards[J]. International Journal of Construction Technology, 1994, 2(2): 53-63. 12 Freeman J B. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure[M]. Berlin: Foris Publications, 1991: 50-72. 13 Dung P M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1995, 77(2): 321-357. 14 Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C. Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171(10-15): 897-921. 15 Lange C, Boj?rs U, Groza T, et al. Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites[C]// Proceedings of the Workshop on Social Data on the Web, 2008. 16 Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Di Bello M, et al. The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts[C]// Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques. DBLP, 2007. 17 Rubino R, Rotolo A, Sartor G. An OWL ontology of fundamental legal concepts[C]// Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006: 101-110. 18 Teufel S. Argumentative zoning: Information extraction from scientific text[D]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1999. 19 Teufel S. The structure of scientific articles: Applications to citation indexing and summarization[M]. Center for the Study of Language and Information, 2010. 20 Green N L. Representation of argumentation in text with rhetorical structure theory[J]. Argumentation, 2010, 24(2): 181-196. 21 Green N L. Identifying argumentation schemes in genetics research articles[C]// Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015: 12-21. 22 Green N L. Argumentation mining in scientific discourse[C]// Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, London, 2017: 7-13. 23 Green N L. Implementing argumentation schemes as logic programs[C]// Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, New York, 2016: 30. 24 Angrosh M A, Cranefield S, Stanger N. A citation centric annotation scheme for scientific articles[C]// Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2012: 5-14. 25 Kirschner C, Eckle-Kohler J, Gurevych I. Linking the thoughts: Analysis of argumentation structures in scientific publications[C]// Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015: 1-11. 26 Groza A, Popa O M. Mining arguments from cancer documents using natural language processing and ontologies[C]// Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing. IEEE, 2016: 77-84. 27 Song N Y, Cheng H H, Zhou H M, et al. Argument structure mining in scientific articles: A comparative analysis[C]// Proceedings of the 19th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. IEEE, 2019: 339-340. 28 王晓光, 宋宁远. 科学论文内容本体比较研究[J]. 数字图书馆论坛, 2017(8): 2-7. 29 Studer R, Benjamins V R, Fensel D. Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods[J]. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1998, 25(1-2): 161-197. 30 王晓光, 宋宁远. 延续与突破: 2017年语义出版研究与实践回顾[J]. 科技与出版, 2018(2): 33-38. 31 Shum S B, Motta E, Domingue J. ScholOnto: An ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse[J]. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2000, 3(3): 237-248. 32 Verheij B. The toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence[M]// Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Boston: Springer US, 2009: 219-238. 33 Ontology of rhetorical blocks[EB/OL]. [2019-05-15]. https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/orb/. 34 Peroni S. The discourse element ontology[EB/OL]. [2019-05-15]. http://purl.org/spar/deo. 35 Constantin A, Peroni S, Pettifer S, et al. The document components ontology (DoCO)[J]. Semantic Web, 2016, 7(2): 167-181. 36 Soldatova L N, King R D. An ontology of scientific experiments[J]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2006, 3(11): 795-803. 37 Ontology of scientific experiments[EB/OL]. [2019-05-15]. http://expo.sourceforge.net/. 38 Soldatova L, Liakata M. An ontology methodology and CISP - The proposed core information about scientic papers[EB/OL]. [2019-05-15]. http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/137/. 39 Liakata M, Saha S, Dobnik S, et al. Automatic recognition of conceptualization zones in scientific articles and two life science applications[J]. Bioinformatics, 2012, 28(7): 991-1000. 40 Uschold M, Gruninger M. Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications[J]. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 1996, 11(2): 93-136. 41 Thompson P, Nawaz R, McNaught J, et al. Enriching a biomedical event corpus with meta-knowledge annotation[J]. BMC Bioinformatics, 2011, 12(1): 393. 42 Thompson P, Nawaz R, Mcnaught J, et al. Enriching news events with meta-knowledge information[J]. Language Resources and Evaluation, 2017, 51(2): 409-438. 43 de Waard A, Maat H P. Epistemic modality and knowledge attribution in scientific discourse: A taxonomy of types and overview of features[C]// Proceedings of the Workshop on Detecting Structure in Scholarly Discourse. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2012: 47-55. 44 Web annotation ontology[EB/OL]. [2019-05-15]. http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/. 45 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20(1): 37-46. 46 王峰, 殷正坤. 社会科学范式与自然科学范式特征的比较研究[J]. 科学技术哲学研究, 1996(3): 31-35. 47 Lippi M, Torroni P. Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends[J]. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2016, 16(2): Article No. 10. 48 马雨萌, 祝忠明. 科学篇章修辞块本体标准及其应用分析[J]. 情报杂志, 2012, 31(10): 112-116, 121.
