Advertisement

Games of Inquiry for Collaborative Concept Structuring

  • Mary A. Keeler
  • Heather D. Pfeiffer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3596)

Abstract

Google’s project to digitize five of the world’s greatest libraries will dramatically extend their search engine reach in the future. Current search-engine philosophy, which asserts that ”any search starts with a question to be answered,” will need to be advanced in terms of Peirce’s philosophy: ”Any inquiry begins by creating an hypothesis to be tested, or with abduction.” As conceptual structures researchers prepare to meet access challenges in the world of large Internet knowledge stores, they have a solid foundation in Peirce’s theorized stages of inquiry: abduction, deduction, and induction. To indicate how conceptual structures tools must augment collaborative, Internet-based inquiry, we imagine a future scenario in the context of a user-centered testbed, where Peirce scholars apply Peirce’s pragmatic theory in their complex manuscript reconstruction work. We suggest that games of inquiry can be developed to formalize user collaboration and technology needs, for improved specification of tool requirements in the testbed context.

Keywords

Formal Concept Analysis Conceptual Content Material Inference Existential Graph Manuscript Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Keeler, M.: Hegel in a Strange Costume: Reconsidering Normative Science in Conceptual Structures Research. In: Ganter, B., de Moor, A., Lex, W. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2746, pp. 37–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keeler, M.: The Philosophical Context of Peirce’s Existential Graphs. Cognito, Centro de Estudos do Pragmatismo Filosofia (2005) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keeler, M., Kloesel, C.: PORT: A Testbed Paradigm for Knowledge Processing in the Humanities. In: Delugach, H.S., Keeler, M.A., Searle, L., Lukose, D., Sowa, J.F. (eds.) ICCS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1257, pp. 505–520. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keeler, M., Kloesel, C.: Communication, Semiotic Continuity, and the Margins of the Peircean Text. In: Greetham, D. (ed.) Margins of the Text. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peirce, C.S.: Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Six volumes. In: Christian, J.W., Kloesel, et al. (eds.). Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1982-1997) (see the Peirce Edition Project: http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce)
  6. 6.
    Robin, R.S.: Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Puder, A., Römer, K.: Generic Trading Service in Telecommunication Platforms. In: Lukose, D., Delugach, H., Keeler, M., Searle, L. (eds.) ICCS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1257, pp. 551–565. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Heildelberg (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Priss, U., Old, L.J.: Modelling Lexical Databases with Formal Concept Analysis. Journal of Universal Computer Science 10(8), 967–984 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Moor, A.: Improving the Testbed Development Process in Collaboratories. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 261–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sowa, J.F., Majumdar, A.K.: Analogic Reasoning. In: Ganter, B., de Moor, A., Lex, W. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2746, pp. 16–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dau, F.: Types and Tokens for Logic with Diagrams. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 62–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Staat, W.: On Abduction, Deduction, Induction, and the Categories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society XXIX(2), 225–237 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeler, M.: Using Brandom’s Framework to Do Peirce’s Normative Science. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 242–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brandom, R.: Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Moor, A., Keeler, M., Richmond, G.: Towards a Pragmatic Web. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D.R., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 235–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wille, R.: Conceptual Contents as Information–Basics for Contextual Judgment Logic. In: de Moor, A., Lex, W., Ganter, B. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2746, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parker, K.A.: Reconstructing the Normative Sciences. Cognito, Centro de Estudos do Pragmatismo Filosofia 4(1), 27–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, P.: The webKB set of tools: A common scheme for shared www, annotations, shared knowledge bases and information retrieval. In: Lukose, D., Delugach, H., Keeler, M., Searle, L. (eds.) ICCS 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1257, pp. 585–588. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sowa, J.F.: Architectures for Intelligent Systems. Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence of IBM Systems Journal 41, 331–349 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfeiffer, H.D.: An Exportable CGIF Module from the CP Environment: A Pragmatic Approach. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 319–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary A. Keeler
    • 1
  • Heather D. Pfeiffer
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Advanced Research Technology in the Arts and HumanitiesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations