C: Here's how that would look using QDL features:Charles' demo of a proposed format
_Each statement is its own post. []
_There are a lot of icons to choose from, and I can add more at any time.
_Then, the QDL ranking feature is utilized to designate the strength, where appropriate. []
_The advantage is that this gives a place inside each post for a more extensive description of the statement, and for criticisms and rebuttals (Deliberatoreum style).
_So the post title could be just a brief statement, while the post body could contain supporting statements, and sub-posts could contain criticisms and rebuttals. []
_I'd say that for large documents, if we're going to break out every single sentence, I should create a function that will automatically do this (i.e., break the text on sentence delimiters, and create the posts).
_Then we'd just have to go back and set the icons and the strengths.L: That all seems promising.
_(Experiment with it?) How about if you and I try it out soon on a few statements, maybe 3 to 6 statements, that we have different views on?*13377
_1. We could start by posting the statements in individual posts like in your example.
_2. Then we each evaluate the statements.
_3. Then we critique statements we disagree with etc.
_I think labels are needed at least for Arguments for author, Observations, Predictions, Questions, Arguments against others, Irrelevant material.
_After we try that at least once, you could then set up your process for dividing papers into a list of posts.*13378
_When you do that, would you like to set it up to number the posts too? I think that would be useful, numbering the statements so they can be referenced conveniently.
