3,078
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The main reason for a poor performance of AMTs in terms of grounding costs is that they are object-oriented technologies: the primary objective of an argument mapping tool is to generate a knowledge object in the form of map able to capture and organize knowledge provided by many contributors during the debate. Unlike other collaboration technologies, AMTs do not focus on the communication process itself; as a result all the information generated from communicative acts developing during the process and mostly aimed at making sense of the debate, e.g. about the participants or
the generation of the content, are missing or hidden. Argumentation technologies add two further obstacles to the conversation. First they force participants to follow pre-established communication formats and rules. Second, they disrupt the time-based reply structure of conversation: as a resultcontributions that in a conversation may come one after the other on a time scale could have very different locations in a map because their logical function in the debate is different.<ref>Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Shum, S. B. (2012). A debate dashboard to enhance online knowledge sharing. VINE, 42(1), 67–93.</ref>.
==Refernces==