update intro and design

2 files changed, 75 insertions, 32 deletions

diff --git a/_design.qmd b/_design.qmd
index b7a6b31..6153f05 100644
--- a/_design.qmd
+++ b/_design.qmd
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+*TODO: rewrite these loose notes...*
+
 Collection of interrelated POSIX scripts and Pandoc extensions
 for enabling semantic annotations in Markdown-based authoring workflows.
 
diff --git a/_intro.qmd b/_intro.qmd
index 0005954..9102509 100644
--- a/_intro.qmd
+++ b/_intro.qmd
@@ -1,44 +1,85 @@
-## Problem space
+The process of authoring a conventional text-based content,
+i.e. texts consisting mainly of a contiguous set of paragraphs,
+can in some sense be described
+as a task of materialising thoughts into a linear form expressed in words.
+The story may consist of moves in time (e.g. a flashback)
+or may not move in time at all (e.g. a dictionary entry),
+but the telling of the story - the text itself - is linear.
 
-A text document often has multiple viewing modes --
-one mode for authoring and another for the final product.
-The author gets to see the wet ink when writing with a pen,
-or editing widgets in word processing systems,
-or markup codes in plaintext editors.
-The target audience typically gets a view of only the authored content,
-unless the document is (intentionally or not) opened in an authoring tool.
+*TODO: reference some supportive Writing Process Research*
 
- then source and target media might differ,
-e.g. a text authored in a word processor
-but delivered as a PDF file.
+During such reductive transformation of complex thoughts into linear text,
+the authoring may be aided by the ability
+to annotate some of the contexts omitted.
+A train of thought may contain multiple interconnected trajectories,
+where some are left out when reshaping into the written storyline,
+but the contexts they represent may still be helpful
+during the ongoing writing process,
+even if not intended as part of the storyline specifically.
 
-Two major modes for authoring texts:
-WYSIWYG and plaintext.
-A fundamental benefit of plaintext approach
+A concrete example common in academic writing is that of citation.
+The source of an included theory or argument or counterpoint
+is not part of the storyline,
+but a reference to it needs to be maintained
+for accurately compiling a reference list later appended to the text.
+For that specific type of author annotation,
+a range of helper tools exist,
+integrated to various degree with various authoring environments.
+Support for author annotations more generically is less common, however.
+
+*TODO: reference later chapter covering known existing tools*
+
+The choice of authoring environment limit choices of functionality.
+Some authors prefer
+a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) authoring environment
+where the words when written
+are visually presented as they would appear in the final document,
+e.g. the word processor Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
+Other authors favor
+a what-you-see-is-what-you-mean (WYSIWYM) authoring environment
+where the words when written
+are visually presented to emphasize their structural function in the text.
+e.g. the word processor RStudio or the document processor LyX.
+Yet others appreciate
+an environment with technical oversight of both structure and layout
+where prose is intermixed with structural and positioning control commands,
+e.g. directly editing of code for the LaTeX typesetting system.
+Each class of authoring system enables a different set of options
+for author annotations.
+
+Whereas the document formats
+for the commonly used tools Microsoft Word and LibreOffice
+are binary,
+the document formats used with RStudio, LyX and LaTeX
+are plaintext,
+which means the data format avoid the use of control characters
+allowing for editing with general-purpose text editors.
+A fundamental benefit of plaintext formatted texts
 is freedom of choice regarding authoring tools
 [@White2022, p. 3].
 
-Among plaintext authoring modes,
-some are oriented towards technical accuracy
-while others prioritise simplicity and ease of use.
-Some authors requiring technical accuracy in their writing,
-notably in academic settings,
-use LaTeX as authoring format,
-while others use LaTeX only as an intermediate format
-with Markdown as their authoring format.
-
-Where @White2022 examines benefits for authors with accessibility needs,
-the interest here is benefits
-for authors with unconventional needs for expression;
-specifically the need to "collect ones own thoughts",
-separately from or prior to targeting another audience.
+## Problem formulation
 
-## Problem
+The author of this project prefers
+a console-based WYSIWYM authoring environment,
+and for political reasons an environment
+consisting solely of freely licensed code.
+More specifically,
+the authoring system chosen of choice is Quarto,
+which allows either a WYSIWYM environment (RStudio among others)
+or a more technical console-based environment (any modern text editor),
+as it uses the plaintext markup format Markdown as source format,
+which is automatically processed by the tool Pandoc
+into any of a range of output formats
+including LaTeX with further postprocessing into PDF.
 
-This project is framed as the following problem statement:
+The aim of this project is to extend Pandoc and Quarto
+to support inclusion of generic annotations
+as integral part of the authoring process.
+This aim has been framed with the following problem statement:
 
-**How can Unix-style tools for authoring linear texts be extended
-to help structure non-linear thinking?**
+**How can Unix-style tools for wiritng technical prose
+be extended to support ontological annotations?**
 
 ## Idea