Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale

Rationale Management in Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 111-132

  Shum, Simon J Buckingham ^a   Selvin, Albert M ^a   Sierhuis, Maarten ^b   Conklin, Jeff ^c   Haley, Charles B ^a   Nuseibeh, Bashar ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^c NASA Ames Research Center ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

argumentation; cognitive overhead; compendium; hypermedia; IBIS; QOC; rationale capture

Indexed keywords

AIR NAVIGATION; INTEROPERABILITY; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

ARGUMENTATION; COGNITIVE OVERHEAD; COMPENDIUM; HYPERMEDIA; IBIS; RATIONALE CAPTURE;

HYPERMEDIA SYSTEMS;

EID: 84889873708     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-30998-7_5     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Antón AI, Potts C (1998) The use of goals to surface requirements for evolving systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering. Kyoto Japan, 19-25 April, pp. 157-166
2. Buckingham Shum S (1996) Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation. In: Moran TP, Carroll JM (eds.) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 185-215
3. Buckingham Shum S, Hammond N (1994) Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 40(4), 603-652
4. Buckingham Shum S, MacLean A, Bellotti V, Hammond N (1997) Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12(3), 267-300
5. Carr C (2003) Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In: Kirschner P, Buckingham Shum S, Carr C (eds.) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making. Springer, London Berlin, Heidelberg New York
6. Clancey WJ, Sierhuis M, Alena R, Berrios D, Dowding J, Graham JS, Tyree KS, Hirsh RL, Garry WB, Semple A, Buckingham Shum S, Shadbolt N, Rupert S (2005) Automating CapCom using mobile agents and robotic assistants. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1st Space Exploration Conference, 31 January-1 February, Orlando, FL. Available from: AIAA Meeting Papers on CD-ROM
7. Churchman, C (1967) Wicked problems (Guest Editorial), Manage. Sci., 4(14), 141-142
8. Conklin J (2003) Dialog mapping: Reflections on an industrial strength case study. In: Kirschner P, Buckingham Shum S, Carr C (eds.) Visualizing Argumentation. Springer, London Berlin Heidelberg New York
9. Conklin J (2005) Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Wiley, Chichester
10. Conklin J, Begeman ML (1988) gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans. Off. Inform. Syst., 4(6), 303-331
11. Conklin J, Burgess Yakemovic KC (1991) A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 6(3&4), 357-391
12. Fischer G, Lemke AC, McCall R, Morch AI (1991) Making argumentation serve design. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 6(3&4), 393-419
13. Grudin J (1996) Evaluating opportunities for design rationale capture. In: Moran TP, Carroll JM (eds.) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
14. Halasz FG (1988) Reflections on Notecards: Seven issues for the next generation of hypermedia systems. Commun. ACM, 31, 836-852
15. Haley CB, Laney RC, Moffett JD, Nuseibeh B (2004) The effect of trust assumptions on the elaboration of security requirements. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Requirements Engineering Conference, Kyoto, 6-10 September. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 102-111
16. Haley CB, Laney RC, Nuseibeh B. (2005). Arguing security: Validating security requirements using structured argumentation, Department of Computing, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, Technical Report 2005/04
17. Isenmann S, Reuter W (1997) IBIS - a convincing concept⋯but a lousy instrument? In: Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. Amsterdam, pp. 163-172
18. Jackson M (2001). Problem Frames. Addison Wesley, London
19. van Lamsweerde A (2004) Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. Edinburgh, 26-28 May, pp. 148-157
20. MacLean A, Young R, Bellotti V, Moran T (1991) Questions, options and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 6, 201-250
21. MacLean A, Bellotti V, Shum S (1993), Developing the design space with design space analysis. In: Byerley PF, Barnard PJ, May J (eds.) Computers, communication and usability: design issues, research and methods for integrated services. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 197-219
22. Moffett JD, Haley CB, Nuseibeh B (2004) Core security requirements artifacts, Department of Computing, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, Technical Report 2004/23.
23. Palus CJ, Horth DM, Pully ML, Selvin A (2003) Exploration for development: developing leadership by making shared sense of complex challenges. Consult. Psychol. J., 55(1), 26-40
24. Papadopolous N (2004) Conflict cartography: a methodology designed to support the efficient and effective resolution of complex, multi-stakeholder conflicts.. ViewCraft LLC. Available from http://www.viewcraft.com/pdfs/ ViewCraft-ConflictCartographyMarch04.pdf
25. Selvin A (1999) Supporting collaborative analysis and design with hypertext functionality. J. Digit. Inform., 1 (4). Available from http://jodi.ecs.soton. ac.uk/Articles/v01/i04/Selvin
26. Selvin A (2003) Fostering collective intelligence: Helping groups use visualized argumentation. In Kirschner P, Buckingham Shum S, Carr C (eds.) Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, London Berlin Heidelberg New York
27. Selvin A (2004) Building collaborative knowledge representations in real time: An analysis of facilitative micro-actions.. Departmental colloquium, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK. Available from http://stadium.open. ac.uk/stadia/preview.php?s=29&whichevent=494
28. Selvin A, Sierhuis M (1999) Case studies of Project Compendium in different organizations. In: Workshop on Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation, Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Stanford, CA (12-15 Decemeber). Available from http://kmi.open. ac.uk/sbs/csca/cscl99
29. Selvin A, Buckingham Shum S (2002) Rapid knowledge construction: a case study in corporate contingency planning using collaborative hypermedia.. Knowl. Process Manage. 9(2), 119-128
30. Shipman FM, Marshall CC (1999) Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems.. Comput. Support. Cooperat. Work, 8(4), 333-352
31. Tate A, Dalton J, Buckingham Shum S, Mancini C, Selvin A (2004) Co-OPR project experiment B report, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, Edinburgh University, UK. Available from: www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/coopr