Re: [Gzz] Linked or associated nodes vs. xuLinked enfilades

[Alatalo Toni]

On Sat, 10 May 2003, Tuomas Lukka wrote:

> > variables, too many pros and cons.
> Welcome to the world of software design and engineering ;)
> This is I believe all have

Definitely. Matti's phrasing also reminded me of those IBIS-style systems
where there are models with those variables, pros and cons -- i guess this
could be done in Loom with defininig a vocabulary? my prof. (am quoting in
length to inform him) has recommended one other than IBIS, the QAR
(Question-Answer-aRgument -model), and implemented it as reported in e.g.:

-from:"http://www.cs.brown.edu/memex/ACM_HypertextTestbed/papers/15.html"-

Flexible CASE and Hypertext

Abstract: Software design environments can and should be improved to serve
better the needs of system developers. Emphasis should be placed on
providing convivial support for knowledge structures echoing those found
in the human mind. This paper describes an overall research cycle to
determine how and to what extent the functionality of software design
environments can be improved by using hypertext. It conceives a hypertext
implementation for a full-blown CASE environment. Hypertext is
incorporated into CASE tools as generic support functionality. A
hypertext-based design rationale tool is also developed. These together
integrate different degrees of information structures, and thus can
support different uses of design information by individuals and groups.
Generic objects and forms of hypertext of this kind improve the
flexibility of software design environments.
Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.2.2 [Software engineering] Design
Tools and Techniques, H.5.4 [Information interfaces and presentation]
Hypertext/Hypermedia

(...)

The Debate Browser [Oinas-Kukkonen 1996] is based on the idea that design
is constant alternation between construction of design artifacts and
argumentation on why these were designed the way they were. It utilizes a
design rationale method, known as QAR (Question-Answer-aRgument), to
enable argumentation within the environment. The existence of this kind of
design rationale representations in the form of hypertext nodes and links
supplement the traditional modelling capabilities of design environments.
These can also support a gradual improvement in the understanding of the
target system during development phases, instead of rushing from
requirements to analysis and design without paying enough attention to
reasoning.

---end---

Then again, an(other) classic publication from our department is:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=236156.236183&coll=portal&dl=ACM&idx=J79&part=magazine&WantType=magazine&title=Communications%20of%20the%20ACM

Why are CASE tools not used?

:o

of course the PEG process already structures these decisionmakings here,
and these more free-form discussions seem quite efficient as well.

> > Some history:
> > In ancient times there used to be one node and some text in content of
> > the node. It was quite nice to be able to link in structure a node to
> > other one. Not a link like xuLink but content could be changed and the
> > link would stay as it is.
> I.e. a *structural* link. A connection in the RDF structure.

right. except that in other contexts (not fenfire etc.) other terms might
be used as well .. although that might well apply generally, dunno.

could of course check the link types & categories that have been
published.

> How exactly must the user be aware where a node ends and another one begins?
> An alternative structure: all text of a single "stream" in one node.
(..)
> > i.e. it was not doable to link two
> > nodes one after other and then edit the content
> Why? How?

..

the actual issues, which i started to comment
escaped me .. took too long to read the thread
that started from here and am too tired to
draw conclusions to base the commentation,

might try to revisit those at some point but
seems that it was a good discussion already,
let this be just a sidenote then :)

~Toni