-11612

071252

A Problem with Outlines

The Argument	The paper begins with a very brief statement of the problem. This is then followed with a much more careful (and complex) treatment of the issue in the broader context of a consideration of how outlines can be used to represent ideas.
	In Brief	Here's the problem. Outlines have a natural top-down hierarchical structure. Conventional typography allows us to show this structure, if we desire, by schemes such as indentation. It is, or can easily be made to be, quite obvious how lower-level points descend from higher-level points. However, the typography associated with the ascent back up the hierarchy is not clear---and goes largely unexpressed at least in outlines that are written in English.
		Example: The nature of the problem can perhaps be explained thusly: Assume we have a two-level outline. We lead with point `A', then we descend to point `A1'. We can recognize that this is a subsidiary point to `A' by the fact (say) that it is indented. Then we proceed to point `A2', which is separated from `A1' in some conventional way, but which also appears at the same level of hierarchy. Now we show a point back up one level. Is this point `B' or is it a `closure' (summary) of the subsidiary points of point `A'. We don't have any typographical conventions that dictate the answer to this question.
		Another Problem: Another potential complication has to do with material which descends more than once. This could occur quite naturally although, again, we have no typographical conventions that allow it to be expressed easily.
		As in Books: Notice that is problem is also found in the structure of a conventional book. The notion of `Chapter' organization into `Sections' of a book. A `Section' is allowed to have a little header material after which we `descend' into the chapters that present the information relevant to the section. However, there is no generally accepted way of `summarizing' the chapters that make up the section in some closing material. We often have `Section Beginnings' but just about never see any `Section Ends'.
Outlines and Conventional Typography	There are some conventional ways that we typeset outlines for representation on paper. These often involve developing some form of indentation that can effectively represent the `nesting' of ideas. However, there are a number of alternatives that might be worth investigating.
	Visible Typography	Outlines often have a visual representation. One of the most common is to use indentation of some kind to show the `hierarchy' of ideas. With this scheme (which tends to be only useful for a couple of levels of indentation at most, the nesting is quite evident from the amount of left indentation that shows in the material that is being presented. Whether there is any corresponding indent from the right margin is a simple matter of taste. Various font manipulations can also be used to carry this kind of information. For example, an obvious one is font size. As one goes down deeper into an idea, there is some `poetic justice' in making the font smaller. Similarly other font `tricks' bolding, italicization, font family changes can also be used either alone or in some combination with these other factors.
	Drupelets: Titled Material	It is useful to define an atomic unit for discussing the relationship between ideas and outlines. We have chosen the term drupelet to name the particular structure that is of interest to us. A drupelet in its most abstract form can be comfortably thought of as a `titled paragraph'. In other words it is block of sentences with a title. These are aggregated into a document. However, there are a couple of special forms which, while they do not technically follow this particular definition, are nevertheless drupelets as far as we are concerned.
		Why Distinguish Drupelets?: Drupelets are useful for allowing text to be stored in some general place and then used in some number of different documents. The basic notion behind the integrity of a particular drupelet is that it represent a text entity that either is or has the potential to be of some use in more than just one context.
		Multi-paragraph Drupelets: Sometimes it is useful to allow a drupelet to have more than one paragraph of text associated with it. We call this a multi-paragraph drupelet and from most standpoints it is treated straightforwardly as a drupelet that happens to have more than one paragraph of text but only one title. It is also regarded as a single `unit' for processing purposes. Thus the paragraph break is simply something for presentation purposes, it does not represent any logical separatioon in the drupelet.
		Title-less Drupelets: One special form of druplet is a titleless drupelet. Not all drupelets need to have a title. It should be noted that there is a difference between a titleless drupelet and a `continuation' paragraph in a multi-paragraph drupelet. The difference has more to do with (potential) use than with presentation. By declaring something to be a multi-paragraph drupelet we indicate that we expect to use the entity as a whole, not only in its original context,but also in other situations where it is used. this can be contrasted with titleless drupelets where we might well expect the paragraphs to be used (or not) in different orders in different situations..
		Other Drupelet Properties: Drupelets may have many other properties, but generally they deal with things like dates and times as well as `names' for the drupelet. In general these properties are not presented in the documents that the drupelets generate, unless the purpose of the document is to describe something about the status of the drupelets. The structure and content of typical drupelets and drupelet properties is discussed in other papers, so we won't treat it in depth here.
	Hierarchy	May ideas have a natural `hierarchy' in expression. Lots of human knowledge is representable in pieces each of which might will aggregate smaller pieces of knowledge into larger and larger wholes.
		Top-Down Structure: A top-down organizational structure is quite a natural one for lotw of ideas. While there's nothing sacred about it, of course, there are lots of real world situations where it is quite convenient to present a `big picture' by unfolding the subsidary parts, within which each part is it's own `big-picture' perhaps containing further subsidiary parts, etc. In doing this, however, it is important that we recognize that which this is quite a natural representation for many problems, there are also many where it is inadequate and where other forms of presentation---perhaps more artful forms---might well apply. We will not give such points any deep consideration here, but they should at least be recognized as important.
		Other Structures: Of course, not all ideas are best expressed in a top down fashion. In literature, for example, we often find quite different organizations. Faulkner stories may arc from the present to the past and back to the present again. This kind of structure does not lend itself naturally to any form of straightforward top-down organization. We will not consider these other possible structures here, tempting as it might be to focus our attention on such interesting issues.
Outlines and Ideas	How should we construct the mapping between ideas and outlines?
	Structuring Outlines
		Titled Paragraphs=Drupelets:
		Titled Paragraphs as Puns for Structure:
		Mid-Dents:
	Outdenting