On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:06:30 PM UTC-5, andyjim wrote: > > > 5. Hierarchical Navigation > The way I see this playing out for me: I will seek a minimal set of > 'highest level' or 'encompassing' headings, the least number under which I > can class everything. Every zettel must (eventually) class under at least > one 'top heading' (maybe the default could be 'unclassed' if I don't class > it). But the acyclic graph principles apply. Even the encompassing headings > can be anyone's children. > > Each zettel, then, maps into the whole shebang by means of: > . headings attached to it (as parents, children siblings) > . zettels attached as parents, children, siblings (Luhman's system does > this, right?) > . direct links with other zettels > . tags, which creates a peculiar, separate but interwoven mapping, which > has even fewer restrictions than the acyclic graph. I want to be able to > look at all tags 'associated' (through the zettels but not directly) to a > given heading or set of headings. > . organizing nodes Luhmann used indexes, for one, and I have not > explored Leo's concepts on this. I expect there is a lot one can do with > organizing nodes > . other organizing features not yet mentioned or conceived... > > It almost seems as though the acyclic node-mapping system should hardly be > called hierarchic, as the very word implies binding limitations, which > clones and acyclic graph bring escape from. And yet a Leo file is a > hierarchical outline (or perhaps I don't yet grasp how clones change the > apparently strict hierarchical display of the Leo outline). >
I wouldn't get hung up on "acyclic". The basic Leo outline organization is automatically acyclic (it's a tree, at least if you pretend that clone nodes are distinct). After you overlay all the links, tags, clones, and so forth, you might easily end up with some number of cycles. As a user, you shouldn't have to know or care about that. > > I guess this is one reason you like mind maps. I do too, even though I've > given up on them a couple of times already and don't currently use them. > You probably enhance the mindmap idea with semantic processing concepts > that would be great to have in zettelkasten. > Mind maps are hierarchical, too, unless you start drawing extra lines that go right from one node to another without coming from the central idea node (which I'm prone to do, though it's hard in some of the software products).. I like mindmaps because they lay out a lot of related information in a way that's easy and fast to grasp (if you don't make them too complicated, as you shouldn't), and because they can be great mnemonic aides. I have taken meeting notes in a mind map, and five years later I could look at that mind map for say five minutes, and the meeting comes back to me. I've never tried any other method that could do that, let alone do it so easily. Linear notes on a page can't compare. I've taught classes and given talks right off a series of mind maps. They bring back to my mind what I plan to say, and the sequence and relationships. OTOH, they aren't so good for capturing a lot of details. I would love to be able to easily display linked zettel information in a mind map. In fact, I've been looking into that a bit the last few days. Actually, a long time ago when I was doing the work that lead to my bookmark manager, I wrote a program that could create and display topic maps in various ways. This software could actually export parts of the topic map in a form that the Mind Manager mind mapping software could import. Back then, a personal license for Mind Manager was not too expensive, and the product was simpler than it is now. I haven had a working copy for years, and now it's expensive and way more complex, and I've haven't bought a license. > I can visualize opportunistically traversing an integrated mindmap of all > the above-listed mappings, just in search of inspiration, no particular > purpose or topic in mind. Each node in such a mapping would access all the > headings, tags, organizing nodes, etc that intersect it; all the types of > handles integrated in one map. Or equally imaginable, traversing such a > mapping with a particular purpose very much in mind. It becomes a capable > search tool as well as a rich browsing context. Wild, I know, and quite > possibly too much mess in practice to be worth anything. Yet the concept is > intriguiing to me. Yep, wild. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/2a441f79-a0be-47de-a6ca-c8386d0ba116%40googlegroups.com.
