This paper describes an approach to derive assessments about information sources based on individual feedback about the sources. We describe TRELLIS, a system that helps users annotate their analysis of alternative information sources that can be contradictory and incomplete. As the user makes a decision on which sources to dismiss and which to believe in making a final decision, TRELLIS captures the derivation of the decision in a semantic markup. TRELLIS then uses these annotations to derive an assessment of the source based on the annotations of many individuals. Our work builds on the Semantic Web and presents a tool that helps users create annotations that are in a mix of formal and human language, and exploits the formal representations to derive measures of trust in the content of Web resources and their original source.

Many efforts have been made to exploit the properties of graphical notations to support argument construction and communication. In the context of design rationale capture, we are interested in graphical argumentation structures as cognitive tools to support individual and collaborative design in real time. This context of use requires a detailed understanding of how a new representational structure integrates into the cognitive and discursive flow of design, that is, whether it provides supportive or intrusive structure. This paper presents a use-oriented analysis of a graphical argumentation notation (QOC). Through a series of empirical studies, we show that it provides most support when elaborating poorly understood design spaces, but is a distraction when evaluating well constrained design spaces. This is explained in terms of the cognitive compatibility between argumentative reasoning and the demands of different modes of designing. We then provide an account based the collaborative affordances of QOC in group design meetings, and extend this to discuss the evolution of QOC argumentation from short term working memory to long term group memory.

Present-day software applications are increasingly required to be #reuse-conscious" in terms of the operating platforms, topology and evolutionary requirements. Traditionally, there has been much dif- #culty in communicating specialized knowledge like design intents, design recommendations and design justi#cations in the discipline of software engineering. This paper presents a methodology based on the combination of design rationale and design patterns to design reusable software systems. Design rationale is the representation of the reasoning behind the design of an artifact. Design patterns are descriptions of communicating objects and classes that are customized to solve a general design problem in a particular context. The paper details the use of an explicit software development process to capture and disseminate the specialized knowledge #i.e., intents, recommendations and justi#cations# that augments the description of the cases in a library #i.e., design patterns# dur...

Organisations recognise the importance of managing what they consider their most valuable asset: Knowledge. Our work is a contribution towards that end, proposing a system for representing, recording, using, retrieving, and managing knowledge. This paper begins by briefly outlining the concept of an Organisational Memory. It will then discuss the high-level conceptual taxonomy that could be used for the design of an Organisational Memory System based on a form of knowledge representation used in Artificial Intelligence: Ontologies. The paper will then discuss a specific implementation of an Organisational Memory System: a Group Memory System using Design Rationale Systems and Case-Based Reasoning. Examples to illustrate the application of such a Group Memory System in a real organisational setting are provided. 1 INTRODUCTION With the increased quality and quantity of information available within organisations, and the increased flow of information between people and software systems...

In their contributions, participants of spatial planning discussions refer to geographic objects. In this paper, an explicit linkage between online maps and arguments is proposed for being used in a World-Wide Webbased support systems for Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making #CSDM#. The representation and storage of geo-referenced arguments in Argumentation Maps #"Argumaps"# will advance the level of integration and utility of asynchronous discussion forums and digital plans. Geographically distributed users involved in public planning debates will be able to query and analyze ongoing discussions and to submit constructive contributions. The paper summarizes related concepts of Argumentation Theory and Geographic Information Science, and describes a potential Argumap implementation based on two existing software tools for discussion and for mapping, respectively. Keywords: Argumentation Map, CSDM, planning discussions, GIS, World-Wide Web 1 Introduction Participants of spatial pla...

This paper describes an approach to capturing organisational memory in which teams use a hypermedia tool to analyse and discuss complex problems. Graphical argument spaces are constructed as competing ideas are debated. Firstly this supports the processes of discussion and negotiation which are central to knowledge work, typically as problems are defined, project constraints shift, and teams reconcile competing agendas. Graphical argumentation provides a shared working memory in meetings by focusing discussion. Secondly, the product of using such a tool to conduct discussions is a shared long term memory of the intellectual investment, thus resisting `organisational amnesia.' Hypermedia groupware provides a way to link informal, socially embedded knowledge with other work artifacts such as reports, sketches and simulations. Examples of this approach's application are briefly surveyed, followed by consideration of the cognitive, group and organisational dynamics that can support, or obstruct such an approach. The concluding discussion seeks to situate this approach in relation to others, by proposing three questions that an approach should seek to answer. These questions seek to clarify the interdependencies between economics, technologies, work practices, and the power and responsibility that controlling knowledge repositories brings.

Typically, complex engineering artifacts are designed by teams who may not all be located in the same building or even city. Additionally, besides having to design a part of an artifact to be consistent with the specification, it must also be consistent with the company's design standards. The Designers ' Workbench supports designers by checking that their configurations satisfy both physical and organisational constraints. The system uses an ontology to describe the available elements in a configuration task. Configurations are composed of features, which can be geometric or nongeometric, physical or abstract. Designers can select a class of feature (e.g. Bolt) from the ontology, and add an instance of that class (e.g. a particular bolt) to their configuration. Properties of the instance can express the parameters of the feature (e.g. the size of the bolt), and also describe connections to other

Abstract. There is a critical and urgent need for automated analytical agents operating in complex domains to provide meta-level explanations of their reasoning and conclusions. In this paper, we identify the principles for designing analytical agents that can explain their reasoning and justify their conclusions at different levels of abstractions to potential human customers with varying goals. We also analyze the goals of users of an automated agent for investigative analysis along the dimensions of why, what, how and when, and develop a taxonomy of human goals that will leverage the explanations generated by the agent. 1