|
|
|
| Scientific Paper Argumentation Ontology and Annotation Experiment |
| Wang Xiaoguang1, Zhou Huimin1, Song Ningyuan2 |
1.School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
2.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Argumentation structure, an integral part of scientific papers, is an important kind of tacit knowledge that relates the claims made by scientific papers to their argumentation process. Normative description and accurate representation of scientific papers' argumentation structure is of great significance to semantic enhancement of scientific papers and document-based knowledge discovery. Based on argumentation theory, this study constructs a new Scientific Paper Argumentation Ontology (SAO) by reusing the existing document component ontology. SAO includes 7 core classes, 13 extended classes, and 15 attribute relationships. To evaluate its usability, 40 scientific papers from the fields of library and information science and biomedical science were selected for semantic annotation experiments. The statistical results showed that SAO has strong expression ability, and that although there are some similarities between the argumentation structure of scientific papers in different fields, their argumentation modes differ.
|
|
Received: 19 July 2019
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
