Tinderbox User-to-User Forum (for formal tech support please email: info@eastgate.com)
http://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/forum//YaBB.cgi
Tinderbox Users >> Questions and Answers >> Links without arrowheads or circles
http://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/forum//YaBB.cgi?num=1468461148

Message started by John Johnson on Jul 13th, 2016, 9:52pm

Title: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by John Johnson on Jul 13th, 2016, 9:52pm

Is there a way to do this?
I have notes that need to be linked, but the directionality doesn't make sense in some cases.

Thanks,
JJ

Title: Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by Mark Bernstein on Jul 14th, 2016, 7:01am

There's not -- at least at present. In the nature of things, it wouldn't be hard to support -- but is it really desirable?

Title: Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by John Johnson on Jul 14th, 2016, 11:13am

Yes :-)

There are many instances where entities have a relationship, but there is no directional information flow, and a hierarchy is not apparent or not appropriate. For example: magnocellular and parvocellular neurons in the retina process signals from rod and cone cells. When making notes concerning visual processing, it might be nice to note their relationship without implying that it is a hierarchical one.
Another example is people in a romantic relationship. Hopefully this would not be hierarchical.
There are, of course, also bidirectional relationships that would warrant inclusion of double-arrow links. For example, motor output to the muscluskeletal system results in proprioceptive feedback that modulates the motor output. This could be modeled as a loop, but to accentuate the interrelatedness of the systems, it might be more appropriate to show their bidirectional influence on one another with a single link and double arrowheads.

Thanks,
JJ

Title: Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by Sumner Gerard on Jul 15th, 2016, 3:20pm

Having the option to not display directionality can also make Tinderbox more useful for argument mapping.

Title: Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by Mark Anderson on Jul 15th, 2016, 3:43pm

...except it would create a disconnect between visual (assumed) behaviour and that seen in actions, agents, etc. The status quo is that Tinderbox's link table only holds single-direction links. If the issue is just graphic (visual) design, suppressing arrowheads might work. But, I suspect significant re-engineering of the TBX document structure will be needed to add the principle of bi-directional or a-directional links.

Title: Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by Mark Bernstein on Jul 17th, 2016, 8:29am

On argument mapping: are you thinking of Toulmin diagrams?  Conklin has an early hypertext system called gIBIS dedicated to this, but of course the links in Toulmin diagrams are directional.

   A --refutes--> B

Does need to be distinguished from

  A <--refutes-- B


But directionality certainly doesn't imply hierarchy!

Title: Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Post by Sumner Gerard on Jul 26th, 2016, 12:39pm

I'm thinking of the kind of mapping where you have an "argument" or "contention" supported by two (or more) "co-premises."  The co-premises are connected in that they always must "work together," but the relationship between them is not necessarily "directional."  I have found the co-premises approach useful for teasing out the hidden assumptions.  

I haven't looked at this in a while but here is an old link with illustrations:

http://austhink.com/reason/tutorials/Tutorial_2/print.htm

There are other ways, I suppose, to show that co-premises work together but I think the easiest and most attractive would be to have the ability to link them without arrows. This would be for display only.


Tinderbox User-to-User Forum (for formal tech support please email: info@eastgate.com) » Powered by YaBB 2.2.1!
YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved.