Welcome, Guest. Please Login
Tinderbox
  News:
IMPORTANT MESSAGE! This forum has now been replaced by a new forum at http://forum.eastgate.com and no further posting or member registration is allowed. The forum is still accessible via read-only access for reference purposes. If you wish to discuss content here, please use the new forum. N.B. - posting in the new forum requires a fresh registration in the new forum (sorry - member data can't be ported).
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Links without arrowheads or circles (Read 1013 times)
John Johnson
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 15
Atlanta
Links without arrowheads or circles
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
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Mark Bernstein
YaBB Administrator
*
Offline

designer of
Tinderbox

Posts: 2871
Eastgate Systems, Inc.
Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Reply #1 - 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?
Back to top
 
 
WWW   IP Logged
John Johnson
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 15
Atlanta
Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Reply #2 - Jul 14th, 2016, 11:13am
 
Yes Smiley

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
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Sumner Gerard
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 359

Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Reply #3 - Jul 15th, 2016, 3:20pm
 
Having the option to not display directionality can also make Tinderbox more useful for argument mapping.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Mark Anderson
YaBB Administrator
*
Offline

User - not staff!

Posts: 5689
Southsea, UK
Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Reply #4 - 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.
Back to top
 
 

--
Mark Anderson
TB user and Wiki Gardener
aTbRef v6
(TB consulting - email me)
WWW shoantel   IP Logged
Mark Bernstein
YaBB Administrator
*
Offline

designer of
Tinderbox

Posts: 2871
Eastgate Systems, Inc.
Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Reply #5 - 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!
Back to top
 
« Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2016, 8:30am by Mark Bernstein »  
WWW   IP Logged
Sumner Gerard
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 359

Re: Links without arrowheads or circles
Reply #6 - 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.

Back to top
 
« Last Edit: Jul 26th, 2016, 12:52pm by Sumner Gerard »  
  IP Logged
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print