Just wanted to write down my vision of a DebateNet? built on top of TagHog?.

      | DebateNet |
 |--------|  |------------|
 | TagHog |  | Provenance |
 |--------|  |------------|
Layer Working name Functions Notes
Bottom TagHog?
* Concept of a proposition that: a particular predicate is true of a particular URI (call these "URI predicate propositions", or, "UPPropositions" for short)
* Allow users to assert the affirmation or negation of a UPProposition
* Predicates may (and should) have (non-formal) definitions
* Allow users to define new predicates if they want
* Assign URIs to predicates, to UPPropositions, and to assertions
* Collaborative filtering to allow you to identify UPPropositions which have been affirmed (and not negated) by supposedly-trustworthy people
Interoperates with social bookmarking services, Provenance
Bottom ?Provenance?
* Associate URIs with people (as "authors" or "asserters" or "believers")
* Allow users to assert the affirmation or negation of an association (i.e. assertions of UPPropositions with a predicate like "BobSaid?(X)")
* Allow users to GPG-sign these assertions
* Allow users to bulk-assert a group of assertions. This is done by asserting that a Provenance identity coincides with a user in a foreign assertion-tracking system (e.g. TagHog?); if this assertion is believed, then the assertions in that system are as if they are asserted by that Provenance identity (modulo your trust that the foreign system hasn't been hacked; after all, depending on how the foreign system works, those individual assertions may or may not have been individually GPG-signed)
* Allow indirect attributions (i.e. Bayle asserts that CNN asserts that Obama said X)
Interoperate with and avoid duplication of functionality with Nym, OpenId?, elsewhere
Top ?DebateNet??
* Regard some URIs as "argument nodes"
* Associate argument nodes with typed links to other argument nodes ("supports", "refutes", subtypes such as "refutes: asserts that target is a logical fallacy". Subtypes may be parameterized with URIs (WHICH logical fallacy). The type hierarchy is open, as types are merely URIs.
* Assign URIs to these links; links are themselves nodes and may be targeted by other nodes
* Uses TagHog? to allow nodes to be asserted
* Uses Provenance to associate URIs with people: testimony with its author, an argument (link) with asserters, a conclusion with believers
Read up on related work; argument mapping, topic maps. Also, there are various related pages at CommunityWiki?

All layers:

Note that TagHog? and Provenance have other uses besides as a substrate for DebateNet?.