Supporting the Creativity Cycle Through Visual Languages

SUPPORTING THE CREATMTY CYCLE THROUGH VISUAL LANGUAGES

BRIAN R. GAINES and MILDRED L. G. SHAW KnowledgeScience Institute University of Calgary Calgary Alberta T2N 1N4 Canada

Abstract: The application of visual language tools for knowledgeacquisition and modeling to the support of student’s creative processes has been investigated. Such tools have potential application to both phases of the creativity cycle, the transition from loose divergent thinking to focusedconvergent thinking, and the converse transition wherebyreceived knowledgeis deconstructed through detecting anomalies and making overt the underlying tacit presuppositions. This paper outlines this model of creative dynamics, gives an overview of past applications of visual languages, such as concept maps, in a range of disciplines, and illustrates their use by graduate research students developingtheir research frameworks.

1. Introduction This paper summarizesthe manydifferent forms of concept mapused in different disciplines, gives an overview of how This paper presents a progress report on ongoing research on using knowledgeacquisition and modeling tools to support we see them supporting creative processes, and reports some creative processes (Shaw and Gaines, 1982). At the AAAI empirical studies of students on a recent Cognitive Science Workshopon Creativity in 1991 we presented some early course using KMapto develop their ideas. studies of graduate students on a Cognitive Science course 2. KnowledgeModeling in the Creativity Cycle using repertory grid tools to develop their research ideas Barron, who has authored a number of major encyclopedia (Shaw and Gaines, 1992). We also gave these students access to another knowledge modeling tool recently articles on creativity, has described what he sees as the current consensusof the nature of creativity: developed at that time which provided graphic support of a visual language for KL-ONE-styleknowledge representation "1. Creativity is an ability to respondadaptively to the needs systems (Gaines, 1991). The students exported their for new approaches and newproducts. It is essentially the repertory grids and derived rules to this tool, and were also ability to bring somethingnew into existence purlx~efuUy, able to use it for direct knowledgeentry. One student in though the process mayhave unconscious, or subliminally particular developedelaborate knowledgestructures for his conscious, as well as fully conscious components. Novel PhDresearch in this tool and commentedthat he found it adaptation is seen to be in the service of increased more effective in developing his research ideas than a flexibility and increased powerto growand/or to survive. conventional text outliner--it was a visual idea outliner. We 2. The "something new"is usually a product resulting from a becameinterested in investigating this type of tool as a process initiated by a person. There are three modes in support for creative thinking, and realized that the students’ which creativity may easily be studied: as product, as using it had not adopted the KL-ONEsemantics. They had process, as person. used the shapes and connections to create concept mapsthat 3. The defining properties of these new products, processes, were expressive and useful to them in thinking, but had no and persons, are their originality, their aptness, their formal semantics (or, at least, did not have those originally validity, their adequacy in meeting a need, and a rather intended). subtle additional property that may be called, simply, fitness---esthetic fitness, ecological fitness, optimumform, Concept maps, as used in education (Novak and Gowin, 1984), have already been used as knowledge acquisition being "right" as well as original at the moment. The tools (McNeese, Zaff, Peio, Snyder, Duncanand McFarren, emphasis is on whatever is fresh, novel, unusual, ingenious, clever, and apt. 1990). and are generated by Cognosys, a text analysis tool developed for knowledge modeling (Woodward, 1990). 4. Such creative products are quite various, of course: a the knowledge modeling research, we were concerned with novel solution to a problemin mathematics; an invention; refining the maps into well-defined formal knowledge the discovery of a new chemical process; the composition structures. In the creativity research, we becameinterested in of a piece of music, or a poem, or a painting; the forming supporting concept maps in general and developed a tool, of a new philosophical or religious system; an innovation KMap,that allows the visual syntax of most commonforms in law; a fresh way of thinking about social problems; a of concept mapto be emulated. breakthrough in ways of treating or preventing a disease; the devising of new ways of controlling the minds of

155 others; the invention of mightynew armaments, both of be original. On the other hand, loose construing is offense and defense; newways of taxing the citizens of a characterizedby a person’s"preposterous thinking" (p. 529) country by its government;or simply a changein manners whichis unformulatedand often preverbal. The structured for multitudes of people in a specific period of time." alternation of these processes is what we perceive as the (Barren, 1988) creativity underlyingintelligent behavior.

Thereis priraafacievalidity of knowledgemodeling tools to Supportthrough support these creative processes from the literature on kingand Spedly Concepts scientific development,change and revolution. For example, Torretti, in analyzing the developmentof modernphysics, considersthe dynamicsof conceptualschema to be the basic PrOCeSSeS frameworkwithin whichall other activities can be located. Clarification In particular, he analyzesin detail the essential limits to Organization conceptualinnovation that providecontinuity in scientific Convergence development,noting that: LooseCons~uaion~ Creativity Tight Construction~ "C1. Someconcepts are immuneto change, and they provide Associational Cycle Definitional Contextual Logical a stable referenceto decisivefacts. Informal Formal C2. The new concepts are arrived at through internal PrOCOSSeS criticism of the old, by virtue of which the facts Supportthrough Deconstruction Supportthrough Hyperrnedia Comparison Know~edgeRepresentation purportedlyreferred to by the earlier modeof thoughtare Systems effectivelydissolved. Criticism Systems C3. Referenceto facts does not dependon the conceptsby Supportthrough KnowledgeModeling Systems used to whichthey are grasped."(Torreui, 1990) DetectAnomalies and Tacit Presuppositions Tools that provide meansto makethese relations between concepts moreovert and operational should have a role in Figure l Creativity cycle and its support the creative processof conceptualtransformation. Figure1 illustrates the natureof the creativity cycleand the Barren, Torretti, and manyothers, describe the phenomena types of process involvedin it, together with the roles that of creativity, but what are its underlying psychological we have designed the associated computer-basedtools to processes?One of the first psychologists to consider the play in supporting these processes. Notethat we see that relationship between the convergent and divergent phase of the cycle that is divergent and deconstructiveas knowledgeprocesses of creativity within a cognitive equal in importance to that which is convergent and frameworkwas George Kelly whose personal construct constructive. It is as importantto be able to deconstrncta theorypresents a personas exploringhis or her environment, well-establishedbase of receivedknowledge through critical collecting data about the worldand constructinga personal processesthat can start a newcreativity cycle, as it is to be reality from which to view it (Kelly, 1955). Personal able to clarify and formalizeideas into theories. Becoming construct theory has been the basis of manyknowledge awareof anomaliesand tacit preconceptionsis a stimulusto acquisition and modeling methodologies. The theory the creation of newapproaches, experiments, interpretations encompassesboth the extensional, case-based methodology and theories. This is not only important to experienced of tools basedon the repertory grid, and the intensional, researchers but also to newgraduate students wherethe concept-based methodologyof tools supporting term- weight of received wisdomis often the most significant subsumptionknowledge representation systems (Gaines and burden impedingtheir establishing their ownresearch Shaw,1993). directionsand identities. Kelly analyzes the dynamics of change in a person’s Creativityis part of a cyclic process.Each phase of the cycle construct system in terms of a creativity cycle in which is different in nature and requires its ownsupport. At one convergent and divergent thinking alternate. A system of time one may be clarifying and substantiating one’s personal constructs is not fixed, but mayvary from one preconceptions, at another attempting to identify and occasionto another: demolish them. Different tools and techniques may be "Thereare typical shifts in the sequenceof construction appropriateto different parts of the cycle, and the sametools which people employ in order to meet everyday maybe used in very different ways dependenton whether situations .... TheCreativity Cyclehas to do with the way the objectiveis a transition fromdivergence to convergence, in which a person develops new ideas." (Kelly, 1955, or the converse. pp.514-515) 3. Visualizationin the CreativityCycle Kelly sees convergence/divergence as a sequence of It is no coincidencethat the wordsimage and imagination loosening and tightening of constructions. A person who havethe sameroots. It has beenknown from early times that uses only light construingmay be very productivebut cannot visual imageryplays a significant role in the creative

156 processes of manypeople. Hadamard’sstudies in the 1940s empirically to analyze organizational decision making showedthe significant role of imageryin creative thinking, (Eden, Jones and Sims, 1979), social systems (Banathy, and manycase studies of genius recount vivid imagesas the 1991)and the policies of political leaders (Hart, 1977). precursors to significant newideas (Hadamard,1945). This linguistics, Graesserand Clark havedeveloped an analysis of has led to a specialist literature on the role of imageryin argumentforms in text in terms of structured conceptmaps creative thought processes, such as Arnheim’s Visual with eight node types and four link types (Graesser and Thinking(Arnheim, 1969) and Miller" s lmageryin Scientific Clark, 1985), and Woodwardhas developedtools to extract Thought(Miller, 1984). such mapsfrom text (Woodward,1990). In the philosophy The availability of low-cost, high-performancegraphic of science, Toulmin developed a theory of scientific argumentbased on typed concept maps(Toulmin, 1958) that workstationsand personalcomputers has madeit possible to is regarded as one of the major themesof the rhetoric of supportvisual thinking processesin a variety of waysacross western thought (Golden, Berquist and Coleman,1976). a wide range of disciplines, and again has led to a major literature on visualization such as the annualIEEE meetings the history of science, the dynamicsof conceptmaps have been usedto represent the processesof conceptualchange in with this theme (Kaufman,1990; Nielson and Rosenblum, scientific revolutions(Nersessian, 1989; Thadgard, 1992). 1991).There is also a large and growingliterature on the use of computer-basedtools to support visual languages with Hypertextsystems that display overviewsof nodesand links formalsemantics for the specification of a widevariety of provide a natural tool for the computersupport of concept structures(Glinert, 1990). mapdevelopment (Smolensky, Bell, Fox, King and Lewis, The studies reported here are concerned with the 1987), and specific tools to do so have been developed applicability of visual languagesdeveloped in artificial (Streitz, Hannemannand Thiiring, 1989; Bernstein, 1992). Frames, semantic networks and hypertext structures have intelligence research to the support of creative processes. been compared(Travers, 1989), and Jonassen has shown Semanticnetworks began as qualitative models of human howthe elicitation of semantic networks maybe used to memoryprocesses (Quillian, 1968) and have been refined structure hypertext(Jonassen, 1990). A variety of techniques over this period to becomehighly formal visual languages representing knowledgestructures based on sound and and computer-basedtools have also been developedfor the analysis of concept maps. Whenthey represent the strict completedenotational or intensional semantics (Gaines, semanticsof a visual languagefor knowledgerepresentation, 1991). Examplesinclude SNePs(Shapiro, 1979), Conceptual it is appropriateto use deductiveinference enginesto draw Graphs(Sowa, 1984), and various visual languagesfor KL- logical conclusionsfrom the maps(Sowa, 1991). Leishman’s ONE(Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). More pragmatic computationof analogical relations as constrained partial examplesinclude the graphic user interfaces for knowledge entry, editing and visualization in commercialtools such as correspondences may also be used with such knowledge structures (Leishman,1989). Manycognitive mapsrepresent KEE, ARTand NEXPERT.Nosek and Roth have shown influencesand causal relations and maybe treated as visual that users comprehendvisual languagerepresentations of languagesspecifying qualitative simulationswhich may then knowledge structures better than they do textual be analyzedusing constraint-based reasoning, or logics of representations(Nosek and Roth, 1990). uncertain reasoning (Kosko, 1986; Zhang, Chenand King, Suchdevelopments in artificial intelligenceare paralleled in 1992). Evengeneral conceptmaps can be analyzedin terms other disciplines by the developmentof visual languagesfor of their structure of their link relations (Cropper,Eden and ’concept maps’, ’cognitive maps’and argumentforms that Ackermann,1990). are visually remarkablysimilar to those cited above,but do 4 SomeExperiments with KMap not have the formal semantics. In education, Ausubel’s theories of the role of conceptual structures in learning KMapis a generalized visual languagetool that provides a (Ausubel and Robinson, 1969) led Novakto develop user interface and data structures for creating, editing, systemof concept maps(Novak, 1977) that has been widely analyzing and exporting typed graphs with directed and appliedin the evaluationof students’ learningin the school undirected links. The user interface allows KMapto be system (Novak and Gowin, 1984). There is now a wide tailored to particular requirementsby specifying the node variety of different forms of concept mapthat have been types required, and associating with visual interface applied in education (Lambiotte, Dansereau, Cross and characteristics suchas shape, color and text attributes. KMap Reynolds, 1989). They have also been used as tools to recognizesa variety of user interface items, suchas menus support the interviewing process in knowledgeacquisition and buttons, that need not be specified in advance,and this from experts, for example in the Wright-Patterson enables its interface to be tailored by specifyingdifferent developmentof the pilot’s associate (McNeeseet al., 1990). interface resourcesrather than modifyingcode. Thespecified In management,Axelrod proposed cognitive maps as a types and interface then allow graphsto be generatedusing meansof representing the conceptualstructures underlying these node types together with lines and arrows as links. decision making(Axelrod, 1976), and these have been used Linksmay be labeled using specified link label nodetypes.

157 Objective I Activity ~, Activity Aim J Pr~ of Overall aimof l motivation ~ requires ~J Definition of an requires Discussions carrying out J underlyingthe -I area of with other research J aim researchers

1[ research

/ J Close reading J readingof J /J of relevant J literatureJ / Objective / J literature /Determination of re(1ulres/ ~ current state of the art relatingto the "-l"requiresl Activity I I Activ"YJ aim p ~J Detailed J J Attendance at J / "I discussion with ~ requires -(H seminars, J specialist J / workshops & J leads researchers / to / conferences J J Activity J Objective /I I Activity J / I Development of a / I .... I Critical analysis requires ---114 of the current conceptual ~ requires ~ P, nalysls.oT J state of the art J frameworkfor J - j~ - J r~.Ssearcn ~.J researcharea I I t / leads Activity q~- A.ctlvlty. J J Synthesis of to requires l Pvaluation or ~ "7 frameworkfor Objective _j statea3fthej J research issues Research ¯ Activity ~1~ design basedon Activity the analysis Clear statement Developmentof requires of objectivesof leads detailed existing research to research objectives Activity I Activity Objective Clear statement of achievements Research Intense & problems implementation uires personal basedon the research Activity design ~_~activity Projectionof leads next steps to Activity Documentationof Objective researchactivities and outcomes Evaluationof requires ~ t research implementation Activity Activity Critical analysisof ownresearch and requires - Clear statement leads comparisonwith of basisof to stateof art evaluation

t ;[ Activity ’ ObJelJrctive J JConclusions and ~ requires - - J Imaginative Jfuture directions I - ~ projection of J worthwhile J of research l Jdeveiopmants

Figure 2 Conceptmap on carrying out graduate research

158 KMapitself supportsall the interactivegraphical capabilities maps. Examplesof Toulmin’s and Gowin’s concept maps for editing, printing and so on. It supports an inter- were discussed and made available, but the tool was application communicationprotocol enabling other programs otherwise presented as an open-endedgrapher with links to to makeuse of the graphs, and to interact with the users HyperCardso that nodes could be annotated. A HyperCard throughthe graphs. Henceit maybe used as a front end to stack supportingsuch annotation was providedso that the manyother systems such as conceptual graph and KL-ONE studentsdid not haveto programan appropriateprotocol. deductive systems, qualitative simulation systems, and KMapwas fully utilized by all the students, both Petrinet and catego~’y-theoreticproof systems. individually and in conjunction with others discussing, KMapmay also be used moreinformally to specify concept amending,or developingalternatives to, the primaryconcept mappingenvironments, and to develop concept mapswithin maps developed. The students all developed their own them. It is this type of use that we have explored with systemsof nodetypes and styles, taking little note of the graduate students on a cognitive science course. The examplesprovided. The node types introduced seem to be objective wasnot only to see howthe availability of such very domainspecific, legitimately so, and this is itself a tools affected their researchactivities, but also to see what lesson for future design. Onelimitation of previousconcept use they madeof the open-endedconcept mapenvironment mapsis that even whennode typing is supported, it is not developmenttools. This contrasts with other applicationsin dynamicand there is no explicit relation betweentypes. The ¯ education wherethe form of concept mapsis specified in open endedstudent use suggests that node types should be advance. treated as a full type lattice. This does not appearto be an artifact of the computingbackground of the students, since Figure 2 showsan exampleconcept map on writing a thesis the types used are morethose suggested by commonsense which we developed and supplied to incoming graduate than data structure theory, but the conclusion should be students. Three node types have been defined, Aim, tested with users with other backgrounds. Objectiveand Activity, togetherwith twolink types, requires and leads to. A rectangular shapehas beenused to identify Figure 3 showsa typical exampleof a large concept map nodes, and an unboxedshape to identify links. The type producedby a student involved in groupwaredevelopment. nameof a node is shownat the top--this is an optional The students used two page monitors, and someof the maps interfacefeature. producedwere large, requiring several pages of printout whenput into their reports. Figure 4 showsthe right hand In the Fall of 1992, we repeated the previously reported side of the samemap so that the content maybe examined. experiment(Shaw and Gaines, 1992) in whichstudents in cognitive science course used knowledgeacquisition and This student had used roundedcorner box to indicate fairly modelingtools to investigate their ownresearch ideas. Eight concreteexemplars. The cluster of exemplarsof hypertexton students again used repertory grids and visual languages the right of Figure 4 forms a natural set of elementsfor individually and in conjunctionwith supervisors and other repertory grid elicitation, and the concept mapsproved a researchers. This time the visual languageediting tool was very natural wayof dividing up an overall domaininto KMapand we did not impose any semantics on the concept coherentsub-domains that couldbe studied in moredetail.

Figure3 Overallstructure of a conceptmap on Issuesrelating to collaborativehypertext development

159 ( PtontWorks platform

e.g

interactive experilentotion ( Intermedia)

Hyper :ard ) e.g .~ Showcase ) AlternateReality 1 e.g ~~ K~t C L.E.G.O )

HyperTIES

Aids

Type and # of phonetic ~ e.g rinks

~~/ei ~{E’ulB~otk°r }

C Referentio, y {Bidt~eCntk~°n°t} l Organizationat Figure4 Righthand side of conceptmap on Issues relating to collaborativehypertext development Figure 5 showsan alternative approachadopted by another Multimediadigital publication supports ’active documents’ student in expressinghis ideas aboutthe legal protectionof containing not only text and pictures but also operational computersoftware. Hedeveloped four separate maps,the top modelsfor visualization, animation,simulation, deduction, level one shownas an overall view of the issues in the experimentationand alternative analyses. This will lead to domain,and three linked ones about patents, copyrightsand major changesin scholarly publication in the next decade trade secrets. This student is developinga knowledge-based(Gaines, 1992, 1993). Weare already seeing parallel system to modelsoftware protection issues, and saw the publicationof booksand journal articles as passiveprint on concept maps as a natural first stage in knowledge paperto satisfy existing publicationoutlets, and as active elicitation. Fromone perspective, a knowledge-basedsystem electronic documents on CD-ROMto support improved developeris not a typical user and this type of approachmay scientific communication(Claerbout and Dellinger, 1991; have no general validity. However,this type of application Gainesand Shaw,1992). Fromthis perspective, one can see raises the intriguing questionas to whetherall researchers the tools that weare providingto studentsas the forerunners might not eventually becomeinterested in makingtheir of electronic publication tools providinga moreexpressive research results operationalas knowledge-basedsystems. mediumfor the disseminationof knowledge.

160 protected by

Figure5 Toplevel conceptmap on the protection of computersoftware

5. Conclusions Acknowledgments This paper has provided a progress report on a research This work was funded in part by the Natural Sciences and activity concernedwith the use of knowledgeacquisition and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Wewish to thank the modeling tools to support creative processes in scholarly 1992 class of CPSC679, Cognitive Processes in Artificial research. It would be inappropriate to attempt to draw Intelligence. significant conclusions from the informal studies reported. References Wedo not knowwhether our students’ creative processes are Arnheim,R. (1969). Visual Thlnk|ng. Berkeley, California, being affected by the tools used. Moreover, we do not know Universityof CaliforniaPress. how to measure this in a meaningful way. Wehave to rely Ausubel,D.P. and Robinson,F.G. (1969). School Learning. New on the primafacie validity of the approach and on subjective York,Holt, Rinehart and Winston. evaluation. This is not particularly satisfactory from a Axelrod,R. (1976). Structure of Decision.Princeton, NewJersey, research perspective, and it would be useful to develop and PrincetonUniversity Press. test morespecific hypothesesrelated to theories of creativity Banathy, B.H. (1991). Cognitive mappingof educational systems such as those of Kelly (1955) and Kim(1991). for future generations. WorldFutures 30(1) 5-17. Barton, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. The Nature of Meanwhile, to tools builders, the support of scholarly Creativity. pp.76-98. Cambridge,UK, CambridgeUniversity research processes offers a very interesting application of Press. knowledge acquisition and modeling tools. Once scholarly Bernstein, B. (1992). Euclid: Supporting collaborative publications are made available through interactive argumentation with hypertext. Department of Computer electronic mediait will becomepossible to actively support Science,University of Coloradoat Boulder. the creative processes of those reading them. That is, what Brachman,R.J. and Schmolze,J. (1985). Anoverview of the KL- we nowsee as specialist tools for knowledgeacquisition and ONEknowledge representation system. Cognitive Science9(2) modeling, when embeddedin interactive documents, will 171-216. become part of the routine publication process. This Claerbout, J.F. and DeUinger,J.A. (1991). StanfordExploration application of artificial intelligence research to the general Project: SEP-CD-I: (1) Earth Soundings Analysism Processing versus Inversion; (2) Anlsotropic Seismic Wave processes of knowledgedissemination is very attractive.

161 Propagation; (3) Progress Reports SEP-72 and SEP-70. Palo Design Acquisition Methodology for the Pilot’s Associate. Alto, California, Stanford University Press. Harry G Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Cropper, S., Eden, C. and Ackermann,F. (1990). Keeping sense Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. accounts using computer-based cognitive maps. Social Science Miner, A.I. (1984). Imagery in Scientific Thought. Cambridge, Computer Review 8(3) 345-366. Massachusetts, M1Tpress. Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D. (1979). Thinking in Nersessian, N.J. (1989). Conceptual change in science and Organizations. London, Macmillan. science education. Synthese 80(1) 163-184. Gaines, B.R. (1991). An interactive visual language for term Nielson, G.M. and Rosenblum, L., Ed. (1991). Visualization’91: subsumption visual languages. IJCAI’91: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Second IEEE Conference on Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Visualization. Los Alamitos, California, IEEE Computer Intelligence. pp.817-823. San Mateo, California, Morgan Society Press. Kaufmann. Nosek, J.T. and Roth, I. (1990). A comparison of formal knowledge Gaines, B.R. (1992). Social dynamics of scholarly publication. representations as communication tools: predicate logic vs AAAI-92 Workshop on Communicating Scientific and semantic network. International Journal of Man-Machine Technical Knowledge.pp.l-8. Menlo Park, California, AAAI. Studies 33(227-239) Gaines, B.R. (1993). An agenda for digital journals: the socio- Novak, J.D. (1977). A Theory of Education. Ithaca, Illinois, technical infTastrucmre of knowledgedissemination. Journal of Cornell University Press. Organizational Computing to appear. Novak, J.D. and Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning HowTo Learn. Gaines, B.R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1992). Documents as expert NewYork, CambridgeUniversity Press. systems. Research and Development in Expert Systems IX. Quillian, M.R. (1968). Semantic memory.Semantic Information Proceedings of British Computer Society Expert Systems Processing. pp.216-270. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Conference. pp.331-349. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Press. University Press. Shapiro, S.C. (1979). The SNePSsemantic network processing Gaines, B.R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1993). Basing knowledge system. Associative Networks: Representation and Use of acquisition tools in personal construct psychology. Knowledge Knowledge by Computers. pp.179-203. New York, Academic Engineering Review8(1) to appear. Press. Glinert’ I.P., Ed. (1990). Visual Programming Environments: Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1982). Tracking the Creativity Paradigms and Systems. Los Alamitus, California, IEEE Cycle with a Microcomputer. International Journal of Man- ComputerSociety Press. Machine Studies 17(1) 75-85. Golden, J.L., Berquist, G.F. and Coleman, W.E. (1976). The Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1992). Mapping creativity with Rhethoric of Western Thought. Dubuque, Idaho, knowledge support tools. AAAI-91Workshop on Creativity: Kendall/Hunt. Models, Methods and Tools. pp.32-45. Menlo Park, Graesser, A.C. and Clark, L.F. (1985). Structures and Procedures California, AAAI. of Implicit Knowledge.New Jersey, Ablex. Smolensky, P., Bell, B., Fox, B., King, R. and Lewis, C. (1987). Hadamard,J. (1945). An Essay on the Psychology of Invention Constraint-based hypertext for argumentation. Proceedings of the Mathematical Field. Princeton, NewJersey, Princeton Hypertext’87. pp.215-245. New York, ACM. University Press. Sown, J.F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Hart, J.A. (1977). Cognitive maps of three latin american policy Processing in Mindand Machine. Reading, Massachusetts, makers. World Polltks 30(1) 115-140. Adison-Wesley. Jonassen, D.H. (1990). Semantic net elicitation: tools for Sown" J.F., Ed. (1991). Principles of Semantic Networks: strucmrin8 hypertext. Hypertext: State of the Art. pp.142-152. Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge. San Oxford, UK,Intellect. Mateo, California, Morgan-Kauf~nan. Kaufman, A., Ed. (1990). Visualization’90: Proceedings of the Streitz, N.A., Hannemann"J. and Th0ring, M. (1989). Fromideas First IEEE Conference on Visualization. Los Alamitos, and arguments to hyperdocuments: travelling through activity California, IEEEComputer Society press. spaces. Proceedings of Hypertext’89. pp.343-364. NewYork, Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New ACM. York. Norton. Thadgard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, New Kim, S.H. (1991). A formal model of creative decision making. Jersey, Princeton University press. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 8(1) 53- Torretti, R. (1990). Creative Understanding: Philosophical 65. Reflections on Physics. Chicago, University of Chicago press. Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal Toulmin" S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK, Man-MachineStudies 24(1) 65-75. CambridgeUniversity press. Lambiotte, J.G., Dansereau, D.F., Cross, D.R. and Reynolds, S.B. Travers, M. (1989). A visual representation for knowledge (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. Educational structures. Proceedings of Hypertext’89. pp.147-158. New Psychology Review 1(4) 331-367. York, ACM. Leishman, D. (1989). Analogy as constrained partial Woodward,B. (1990). Knowledgeengineering at the front-end: correspondence over conceptual graphs. Proceedings of defining the domain. KnowledgeAcquisition 2(1) 73-94. KR’89: First International Conference on Principles of Zhang, W.R., Chert, S.S. and King, R.S. (1992). A cognitive-map- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. pp.223-234. San based approach to the coordination of distributed cooperative Mateo, California, MorganKauffman. agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and McNeese,M.D., Zaff, B.S., Peio, K.J., Snyder, D.E., Duncan, J.C. Cybernetics SMC-22(1) 103-114. and McFarren, M.R. (1990). An Advanced Knowledge and

162