Just a curiosity of mine: I am wondering if Kelly's Personal Construct
Theory isn't at work in an IBIS-style discussion. If that were so, then
Kelly would argue for some kind of sliding scale, with neutral being 0 in
the center, and + and - 1 being the poles. One might then simply set the
slider rather than make a statement, and follow that with a justification
for the setting.
At 10:11 AM 11/5/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >Actually, I note in one of Simon Buckingham Shum's papers in the D3E
> >"Negotiating the Construction of Organisational Memories ",
> >that the gIBIS implementation notation shown has a mixed +/- icon for an
>Yes, QuestMap allows you to declare an argument as + (Pro) or -
>(Con), or +/- (Neutral Argument)
>In a particular mode (Quicklinking turned off) if a + is linked to an
>Idea via a negative link, then the + is changed to a +/-
>Other notations use calmer icons (you can turn these off in QMap as
>well), but these ones highlight the gestalt quickly.
>It's designed for very rapid capture. Obviously, if something is a
>Pro to one Idea, it may be a relative Con to others, but unless you
>make those links explicitly (more overhead), it remains there
>displayed as a Pro.
>This move to explicit Pro and Con node types is different to
>'classic' IBIS (possibly it was a marketing ploy!). It's better to
>load the LINKS with the semantics, leaving the nodes neutral to play
>whatever role between 2 nodes that the links infer.
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 06:20:44 PST