Next: Analysis of the Up: Approaches Taken by Previous: Group 4 Organization

Group 5 Organization

This group chose a simple and straightforward organization scheme; it's general shape is shown in Figure 5. From the index, the user could move into the discussions of the architectures. Each architecture's top node also included links to a description of the architecture, capabilities, properties, and environmental considerations. Group 5's nodes were designed similarly to those of Group 4 in that the user was always no more than two clicks from the index. Group 5's chosen node size was the same as that of Group 1; each high-level sub-topic in the description of an architecture was made an individual node.

Beyond this basic scheme, Group 5's sub-topic index pages contained tables which one person described as ``the Consumers' Reports review of Cognitive Architectures.'' These tables were presented in a matrix format with specific architectures on the columns and the dimension of comparison on the rows. The tables were integrated into the document through links at the intersections of rows and columns. For example, at the comparison of capabilities node (sketched in Figure 5), the user is presented with a table that cross-references all the architectures with all the capabilities. Each cell in the table contain links entitled Yes, No or N/A(Not Applicable). Clicking Y takes the user to the specific capability in the capabilities node for the selected architecture. An N link takes the user to a brief discussion of the probable reasons that architecture does not support the selected capability. Clicking on an individual capability (the first cell of each row) goes to a definition of that capability. Similarly, clicking on an architecture name (the top cell in each column) takes the user to the top node of the selected architecture. These links are represented as dotted lines in Figure 5.

The other tables were of similar design except that the cells contained links that formed a code rather than the simple Y, N, or N/A. For example, the cell for the Adaptive Intelligent Systems (AIS) architecture [Hayes-Roth1991] in the ``Comparison of Properties'' table has the label DSPN for the knowledge representation property, meaning, in this case, that AIS's knowledge representation is both Declarative and Procedural, comprising a Symbolic world model which, since the architecture supports two different types of representation, is Non-uniform. The code was defined in a legend just below the table.

One minor drawback of this tabular presentation was that it sometimes required the user to enlarge the window and/or reduce the font size in order to view the entire table. A more serious problem with this format is that the tabular organization had to be modified each time a new feature was identified from the readings or integrated into the pre-existing structure (using the codes). Thus, it became difficult to include information unique to a small subset of the architectures using the tabular format.

Next: Analysis of the Up: Approaches Taken by Previous: Group 4 Organization