"a data interchange format should be easy to read and understand with a simple editor
 by trained people"
   opposition: "a data interchange format is for data exchange between machines and
                hence does not have to be read directly by people" (pm),
   specialization: "a knowledge interchange format should be easy to read and 
                    understand with a simple editor, by trained people" (pm),
   argument: "any argument for using XML or any other textual notation 
              rather than a binary format" (pm),
   objection: "any argument for using a binary format rather than XML or any other
               textual notation" (pm);


   "a knowledge interchange format should be easy to read and understand with
    a simple editor, by trained people"
      argument: ("it may be cumbersome or inadequate to have to call 
                  translators/viewers/editors from some programs"
                    argument: ("having to use translators/viewers/editors when writing or
                                reading emails is cumbersome or impossible"
                                  argument: "this is obviously true when reading/writing
                                             emails through a text-only interface (telnet,
                                             ssh, putty, simple mailers, etc.)" (pm)
                              )(pm)
                )(pm),
      argument: "developing/debugging translators/viewers/editors for a knowledge 
                 interchange format is much easier if the format is easy to read" (pm),
      argument: "documents about the translation from/to the knowledge interchange format 
                 are easier to write if the format is easy to write" (pm),
      argument: "flexible translators/viewers/editors are difficult to program" (pm),
      argument: "a translator/viewer/editor good enough for all users, kinds of knowledge
                 or purposes may not be available or freely available" (pm),
      argument: ("a good notation and a good text editor are often more convenient to use
                  than XML/graphic/... editors"
                    objection: ("no linear (textual) representation can scale up"
                                   opposition: "for people's understanding purposes, only 
                                                a concise linear (textual) notation may
                                                scale up" (pm)
                               )(fg),
                    objection: "textual representations are mastered only by developers
                                 or other technical people" (fg,
                      objection: "graphic-based representation are not better 'mastered' by
                                  non-technical people than textual representations" (pm),
                      objection: "textual representations does not prevent the use of
                                  tools (structured editors, graphic viewers, etc.) but
                                  XML-based/graphical-based representations force the
                                  use of additional tools" (pm))
                )(pm),
      argument: ("for various reasons (e.g. to avoid the numerous issues related
                  to translations), people have/tend to write directly in the
                  knowledge interchange format"
                    argument_by_authority: "the authors of KIF regret not to have 
                                            understood this earlier and come up with
                                            a more intuitive notation" (pm)
                )(pm);



"for people's understanding purposes, only a concise linear (textual),
 notation may scale up"
   argument: ("graphic notations are not concise enough to be scalable
               for people's understanding purposes"
                 example: "natural languages are not graphic" (pm),
                 example: "most programming languages are not graphic" (pm),
                 example: "flow charts have been abandonned in favor of pseudcode
                           because they were far less practical/scalable" (pm),
                 argument: "scalability for people's understanding purposes requires
                            as much information as possible to be seen without having
                            to scroll or browse" (pm)
             )(pm);


"scalability for people's understanding purposes requires as much information as
 possible to be seen without having to scroll or browse"
   argument: - "scalability for people's understanding purposes requires many quick
                comparisons of information" (pm)
             - ("synthesis/comparison of information not accessible at a glance is
                 tedious and limited"
                   example: "having to browse through a translation dictionary to 
                             understand the words of sentences in a foreign language
                             make the sentences much harder to understand than if
                             the translation of each word or sentence is given after
                             each word or sentence" (pm)
               )(pm);