I must respectfully disagree with my good friend Simon's statement below.
Putting semantics in links may be better in an abstract or theoretical
sense. But in practice, it makes constructing discourse with IBIS (or
similar frameworks) much more difficult, especially for new initiates. In
other words, it's harder to do and to learn. Watch nearly anyone trying to
learn to construct, or for that matter, read this type of representation.
They will get thrown by the "double work" of not only trying to chop up
discourse into nodes and give those nodes types, but also trying to
determine what types the links should be; where do the semantics go? Too
many choices need to be made. Again, this is more of a human
factors/affordance problem than it is a problem of determining the "best"
One strategy that, to some degree, gets around this difficulty, is to use
Questions as the semantic glue between nodes, but that's a matter for
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-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
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 - 05:16:36 PST