Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Icons for IBIS
Jeff Conklin wrote:
> .... What's an example where you really need to transclude just the
> argument, without the Question and Idea that it's a part of? (01)
Maybe I was thinking of arguments of a different order of logical
those involved in rapid dispute settlement.
I was concerned with modelling premisses and assumptions in
but with attached icons. I might move an assumption from one theory to
with contrasting effect, but at that level the assumption might
whose identity I want to preserve across the move. (02)
E.g. the assumption, "All men are created equal", holds different value
in an egalitarian
worldview from one with a strong caste system. (03)
Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong tool, though it does strike me that
one might want to preserve such differences even across IBIS sessions. (04)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Conklin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Icons for IBIS (07)
> Ten or 15 years ago I was really into capturing subtleties of argument
> structure -- different weights, constraint relationships, etc. Then I
> tried to teach that stuff to business people who were trying to solve
> complex problems -- even the ones who really understood the logic got
> mixed up (e.g. incorrect link semantics) in the press of sorting out a
> problem. So I have a great appreciation for structures and interfaces
> are simple and intuitive -- the test being: can my clients use them
> making real decisions without getting all balled up in the logic.
> One of the issues that has come up recently is about the structure of
> rebuttal to arguments. An awful lot of problem solving discussion
> on groups evaluating the validity and relevance of arguments, which
> that there's a whole "sub-grammar" for debate about argument validity
> opposed to pros and cons about options/alternatives/ideas). My
> with clients suggests that anything that is logically adequate will be
> overkill in practice.
> Anyway, I think that generally the sense of an argument (whether it's
> or con) is best treated as link semantics, with the node graphically
> amplifying that semantics wherever it is unambiguous (as QuestMap
> does). However, I also think that a lot of skill and practice goes
> wording arguments so that they are semantically clear and unambiguous.
> first impulse about transcluding arguments is not to do it -- restate
> argument in each context to be clear and compelling in that
> context. What's an example where you really need to transclude just
> argument, without the Question and Idea that it's a part of?
> At 09:29 AM 4/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Eric's example below is actually a case where something is being used
> >argument that is really better stated as an idea/position/answer. "X
> >$10,000 to buy" isn't stated as a an argument; it's a statement of
> >is too expensive", OTOH, would be an argument.
> >Eric Armstrong <email@example.com>@bootstrap.org on 04/10/2002
> >07:42:33 PM
> >Please respond to firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Sent by: email@example.com
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Icons for IBIS
> >Peter Jones wrote:
> > > This question is addressed to those folks out there implementing
> > > for IBIS.
> > > If I have a particular node in a discussion that is marked as a
> > > positive,
> > > and I then transclude that node into another discussion where I
> > > want it to play the part of a negative, how do I do that given
> > > I want to maintain the identity of the node across the two
> > > Are the icons independent of node identity?
> >Yes, the icon must be independent of the node, for exactly that
> >The "for/against" property is a property of the relationship, not a
> >of the node.
> >For example, the node:
> > X costs $10,000 to buy
> >Is a negative response to the question:
> > Q: Should we buy X or implement it ourselves?
> > A: Purchase X
> > +: X costs $10,000 to buy
> > +: If we develop it, it will cost $100,000.
> >On the other hand, it's a positive if the question is:
> > Q: What product should we buy?
> > A: Purchase X
> > -: X costs $10,000
> > A: Purchase Y
> > +: Y costs $1,000
> >Similary, if the question is whether to lease or buy,
> >that knowledge nugget / factoid could play a positive
> >or negative role.
> >This issue also brings up the issue of "scales" that we
> >visited a while a back. If there are three purchase
> >options, X, Y, and Z, and they cost different amounts,
> >then a price dimension exists, and each product has a
> >point on that scale.
> >Now, an IBIS discussion can be carried on without
> >reusing data. In such contexts, it makes sense to assign
> >positives and negatives to nodes. But when the IBIS
> >concept is extended to include access to reusable
> >"knowledge", using transclusion or some other mechanism,
> >then it is only the data which is transcluded, not the
> >+/_ relationship.
> >That leads me to think of invariant structure nodes that
> >cannot be moved reused, and maleable content nodes
> >that can be. The structure node may have the + attribute
> >then, because it is fixed in a hierarchy (it represents the
> >relationship). It would link to a content node which contains
> >the data "X costs $10,000". That content node could then
> >be reused in multiple locations, were it desirable to do so.
> Dr. Jeff Conklin <email@example.com>
> CogNexus Institute ... Collaborative Display, Collective Intelligence
> http://cognexus.org Phone/Fax: 410-798-4495
> 304 Arbutus Dr., Edgewater, MD 21037 USA