Keynote

What is Hypertext?

Peter J. Nürnberg

Department of Computer Science

Aalborg University Esbjerg,

Niels Bohrs Vej 8

DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark

pnuern@cs.aue.auc.dk

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

    2. The most fundamental possible question that can be posed at a conference on hypertext, but one that is nonetheless difficult to answer, is: what is hypertext? Our answers to this question are not mere matters of definition, but define our community and the coherence of our message to others. We live in an age in which hypertext as a technology has become pervasive, and yet research interest in hypertext as such seems to be waning. How can this be explained? By looking into how we answer the question of what hypertext is, we may move toward an explanation of this trend.

  2. CLASSIFYING HYPERTEXT WORK

    3. In answering the question of what hypertext is, we can turn our attention to certain characteristics of hypertext work. Here, we look at three ``axes'' that define a space in which we can locate hypertext work, past and present.

    1. Manual vs Automatic

      2. One view of hypertext work is that it supports essentially manual tasks. That is, those high-level tasks not easily formalized or amenable to automatic machine processing can be handled by hypertext tools that facilitate certain supporting low-level tasks. While it may be difficult to automate much knowledge work, for example, certain supporting tools (e.g., associative storage and retrieval systems) might be constructed that allow such knowledge work to be performed more efficiently. Another view of hypertext is that it allows the (partial, at least) automation of certain high-level knowledge work, often through a processing of structure. In this view, autonomous agents process structurally enhanced data to automatically perform various tasks for us. Where along this axis were the early hypertext pioneers? Where is the current work in the hypertext field? Are we conscious of the changes we are making?

    2. Contextual vs Essential

      3. One view of hypertext work is that it provides tools to build context for data. This view implies that the meaning of data is not inherent in the data itself, but rather resides in the structures into which the data is incorporated. Data is, in itself, only useful when set into a context, structured and reinterpreted to play a role in a particular setting. Another view of hypertext work is that it supports the expression of the inherent structures in data. Data is essentially structured – hypertext can provide ways to express this structure. Again, where along this axis were the early hypertext pioneers? Again, where is the current work in the hypertext field? Again, are we conscious of the changes we are making?

    3. Perceived vs Implemented Structure

    One view of hypertext work is that it essentially concerns the presentation of structure. That is, structure should be perceived by the user of a system in order to facilitate certain tasks. The question of how such perceived structure is implemented is ultimately irrelevant. Another view of hypertext work is that it essentially concerns the implementation of structure. That is, structure must be a fundamental building block of a system in order to make certain tasks efficient and/or convenient. The question of how such structure is rendered to the user (if at all) is ultimately irrelevant. As with the previous two axes, can we detect changes in opinion on this topic from the ``early'' days of hypertext to the current day? Are these changes worth reconsidering?

  3. RELATED QUESTIONS

    4. Before turning to the question of what hypertext is, we can examine a number of related questions.

    1. Where is Hypertext?

      2. Some view hypertext as an interaction paradigm – browsing as an alternative to query, for example. Others view it as a data organization paradigm – the augmentation of ``pure'' data with rich, semantically meaningful structure. Still others view it as a computation paradigm – a way of reconceptualizing all computation as structure transformation. Generally, we can think of meaningful interpretations of hypertext at any ``layer'' of a computing system – from user interface to operating system, and everywhere in between. When we look at the work presented at the ACM Hypertext conferences over the past 15 years, can we note trends in where we believe interesting hypertext resides? Are some areas gaining favor with our community, while others become neglected?

    2. What Types of Questions are Relevant?

    Different communities address different types of issues. Some primarily consider theoretical questions – what does hypertext mean? Others primarily consider implementation questions – given a well-understood theoretical aspect of hypertext, how best is this realized in practice? Still others primarily consider evaluation questions – given a set of well-accepted or reproducible phenomena, how can we establish the relative value of these phenomena? Again, generally, we can think of meaningful hypertext questions over an entire spectrum of stances, from philosophical-theoretical to evaluative, and everywhere in between. And again, when we look at 15 years of ACM Hypertext conferences, can we try to find trends in the types of questions addressed by the members of our community?

  4. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY?

    5. Different communities serve different purposes. Some primarily pursue a program of standardization, attempting to harmonize a diverse set of ideas, terms, and/or systems into an interoperating whole. Others primarily serve an evangeliz-ation mission, stirring up the faithful and sending them forth to ``convert'' others to a particular technology, philosophy, or agenda. Still others see their purpose as canon-defining, separating representative (best or not) work from heretical or impure expressions. What is our community trying to achieve? Do we have an articulated purpose, an unarticulated one, or no particular agenda at all? Has our purpose been redefined over the years?

  5. CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this talk is not to prescribe answers to the questions raised here but rather to describe one view of where the field has been, where it is now, and where it seems to be heading. It seems clear that regardless of one's level of satisfaction with the current state of affairs within our community, there is plenty of room for growth, plenty of potential for cooperation with other fields, plenty of opportunity to explore new directions of research. By examining the questions posed above (and others), we may be able to plot out a strategy for our community in the years to come.