Ask [[P- Joel Chan]] lol I'll add a link to his website as soon as he publishes, as his discourse graph goes deep. The page in his graph has so many references, none of these links are going to work, but if you're interested in reading more you can look at his Zotero cite keys and that will help you with Google Scholar searches.

• [[🌲 zettels]]
  • Tags: #[[D/Synthesis Infrastructure]]
  • Description:
    • Philosophical accounts of synthesis in science emphasize that it is a form of [[argumentation]], which operates on statements and concepts as fundamental units
    • [[@harsDesigningScientificKnowledge2001]] synthesized four major objectivist epistemological models of scientific knowledge from [[Philosophy of Science]], including Popper [[@popperLogicScientificDiscovery1959]], Nagel [[@nagelStructureScienceProblems1979]], Dubin [[@dubinTheoryBuilding1978]], and Bunge [[@bungePhilosophyScience1998]], and demonstrated that they all model argumentation in terms of scientists building systems of scientific statements, which are composed of relationships between concepts.
    • We see this also in the way that [[C- Scientists read strategically, not linearly]] specifically for these components. This might be an artifact of the current structure of the [[[[scholarly communication]] [[infrastructure]]]] though, since [[C- Most scholarly communication infrastructure operates on the document as the base unit]]
    • Note: we need to work out whether [[Interpretivist]] epistemologies will have different implications; my initial instinct is no; the structure won't change that much (although [[context]] might become far more important)
  • A number of prominent models of alt. scholarly comm infrastructures for search and (sometimes machine, but also human) sensemaking of scholarly argumentation
    • Overall vision is well cast by [[@deWaardProteinsFairytalesDirections2010]] and [[@liddoContestedCollectiveIntelligence2012]] to emphasize that we need discourse, not just knowledge graphs, but definitely not just papers!
    • Thread of work on claims/statements as primary unit
      • Claims in HCI [[@mccrickardMakingClaimsKnowledge2012]]
      • [[std/Nanopublications]] - statements and their provenance as primary unit - [[@grothAnatomyNanopublication2010]]
      • [[std/SWAN]] - [[@ciccareseSWANBiomedicalDiscourse2008]] [[@clarkAlzforumSWANPresent2007]]
      • [[Scholarly Ontologies Project]] and related work from [[Knowledge Media Institute]] focusing on claims/statements
        • [[@urenSensemakingToolsUnderstanding2006]]
        • [[@shumScholOntoOntologybasedDigital2000]]
        • [[@shumModelingNaturalisticArgumentation2006]]
        • [[@liddoContestedCollectiveIntelligence2012]]
    • Thread of work pushing forward statements to emphasize distinction between claims and evidence
      • [[std/Micropublication]]s for claims and "data" (evidence) - [[@clarkMicropublicationsSemanticModel2014]]
      • [[std/HypER]] for hypotheses and evidence [[@dewaardHypothesesEvidenceRelationships2009]]
      • [[std/SEPIO]] for assertions and evidence [[@brushSEPIOSemanticModel2016]]
  • [[@harsDesigningScientificKnowledge2001]] articulates some good {{alias: [[example-of]] examples of}} the kinds of queries that are both crucial for [[synthesis]] and functionally impossible to answer in our current scholarly communication infrastructure, such as "What are unsolved problems in domain X? What solutions have been proposed for problem X? What extensions have been proposed? What theories incorporate concept X? What are alternative interpretations of concept X"?
  • R-Sources:
    • Statements were a core building block of a model of scientific knowledge synthesized from four [[Positivist]] epistemological models of scientific knowledge from philosophy of science [[@popperLogicScientificDiscovery1959]] [[@nagelStructureScienceProblems1979]] [[@dubinTheoryBuilding1978]] [[@bungePhilosophyScience1998]] #Atomicity [[@harsDesigningScientificKnowledge2001]]
      • (p. 70)
    • Concepts are a core building block of a model of scientific knowledge (p. 70) #[[📝 lit-notes]] #Atomicity [[@harsDesigningScientificKnowledge2001]]
      • 
    • Four [[Positivist]] epistemological models of scientific knowledge from philosophy of science [[@popperLogicScientificDiscovery1959]] [[@nagelStructureScienceProblems1979]] [[@dubinTheoryBuilding1978]] [[@bungePhilosophyScience1998]] agree that scientists build theories as systems of scientific statements, which are composed of relationships between concepts (p. 70) #[[📝 lit-notes]] #Atomicity #compositionality [[@harsDesigningScientificKnowledge2001]]
      • 
      • 
    • [[@shumScholOntoOntologybasedDigital2000]]
  • Todos:
    • [[Joel Chan]] #TaskWrite Bring this stuff into conversation with the [[UIUC]] model of data model stuff