Re: [unrev-II] IBIS in XTM

From: Jack Park (
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 16:41:52 PST

  • Next message: Bernard Vatant: "[unrev-II] Re: Collective Intelligence"

    Yup. The ontology for that paper is not at all developed (yet). However,
    it's all out of the book which is still available (latest reprint 1999). A
    warrant is like a rule -- a major premise.
    Eric is a human == minor premise == data
    All humans are happy == major premise == warrant
    A warrant can be backed (backing) with further rules.
    Eric is happy == claim == inference

    I have two panels on the gui, one where an argument starts with a question,
    and one where an argument starts with a claim (and supplemental context

    It's all just getting started.
    Visit for all the stuff about XTM.

    From: Eric Armstrong <>

    > Ok, failing my favored print output, but given the
    > importance, I reviewed the paper online. (Fortunately,
    > it was short.)
    > Jack Park wrote:
    > >
    > > I have placed a draft (rough, unfinished) on my web site at
    > >
    > > <>
    > >
    > Cool.
    > Some comments:
    > * One of IBIS's cool features is that you never express
    > a claim *without* introducing an (open-ended) question
    > that it responds to.
    > By explicitly stating the question, you leave room for
    > other possible answers, and for an evaluation of the
    > alternatives wrt the original claim.
    > This is particularly appropriate in design discussions.
    > Rather than simply proposing "X", one first states the
    > question, "How should we accomplish Y?", and the
    > propose "X" as an answer. That immediately creates the
    > hook on which other possible answers can be hung.
    > * I'm on the first page, and although most of labels in
    > the graph are intuitively clear, I must confess that I
    > have no idea what a "warrant" would be, or how it would
    > relate to a claim. (I'm sure I'll get the idea as I
    > read on. I just wanted to point out that it's not
    > intuitively understandable, at this juncture.)
    > * Hmmm. I better read the XTM paper. I don't know much about
    > it, and the paper isn't giving me much background on it.
    > All in all, it looks like an intriguing start. I look forward
    > to future drafts.

    This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
    contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
    the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
    If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
    of the message and its attachments and notify

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
    eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
    Click here for more details

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 16:53:51 PST