There is a gap between our structure of categories and the individual argument maps. Simply listing maps under sub-categories does not provide information about the following:
what are the controversial issues?
what are all available positions on one issue or topic?
can these positions be grouped into similarity groups? For example there might be many different positions on abortion, but they can be grouped roughly into "regulate and restrict abortions by law" and "leave the decision to the woman."
since nobody can know in advance how many similarity groups there will be (especially for wicked problems), the forming of similarity groups need to be left to the users. But there needs to be a user interface that guides the process.
There is a gap between our structure of categories and the individual argument maps. Simply listing maps under sub-categories does not provide information about the following:
Something like this has been tried in IBIS-based systems. See for example. http://edfutures.evidence-hub.net/networkgraph.php?id=137108145400507063001331890985. But this is very chaotic.
How to do this will be a challenge. See also #198