Tobias I take your point about my XXL-MTC. FND has brought this to my attention on my blog post homage[1] to the MTC. I am revamping an earlier version of a project prototype [2]
Below is the most is another XXL sized text answering your question - What's your idea behind this kind of "field-tagging"? I've described the whole project for context Summary The idea is to save work in the long run on a group project which requires flexibility. The project is a questionnaire to diagnose organisational problems. There are Question tidders and Pathology tiddlers. The Question tiddlers have two fields which contain Pathologies as either primary or secondary pathologies. The idea behind "field-tagging" is to make it easier to change the titles of the pathologies. Description of Problem ------------------------------- There are 20 'pathologies' which are patterns of organisational behavior, each is stored as a tiddler. These are written by the group, and their titles as well as the text of the pathologies are subject to change. They have titles like 'Bricks without Straw' , 'Control Dilemma' and 'Death Spiral', and have sections - 'Description' , 'Systemic effect', 'Potential ways forward' - each written in layman's language but based on systems theory. These pathologies have tags: P1, P2, P3 [...] P20. Why? Flexibility is needed in the names of the pathologies as the group changes them. The titles are a mix of consultant slang, biblical reference and cybernetic jargon (Open Loops and Reverse Polarity) and now include some animals! - 'Stray Lambs', 'Giraffes'..... but it is hoped that with use, their names will settle over time and with use. There are also 24 questions - Q1, Q2 [...] Q24 also composed by the group. A low score on each question triggers a pathology. The pathology can be either 'primary' or 'secondary' so I have settled on using two custom fields - 'primary' and 'secondary' - to hold the *tag* of the pathology in each question. In the previous version, I had the *title* of the pathologies in the custom field. This proved very difficult when changes were made to the pathology title. I would have change the fields in all the questions the pathology occurred. Why "field tagging"? --------------------------- If the field value is the *tag* of a pathology then all that would have to change would be the title of the pathology. I hope get the TW into a shape where any member of the development group can change the names of the pathologies themselves, without emailing Microsoft word files to me to cut and paste. If the tag-field relationship remains fixed then it will be easier for a group to change the name of the pathology in a TW. I've judged it too much to ask for development group members to change custom fields. Sections are already used in the pathology text - designed to be editable by group members. I don't want to display the relationship between question and pathology to the end user, and don't want to introduce hidden sections to the development group, or introduce the chance of typos. This is why I don't want to use sections to relate question to pathology in the pathologies. The questions are composed of different elements, the question (including transcluded values), a help text, a script and the score. I'd prefer to keep the pathologies out of sections in the question tiddlers too. It will be too confusing. I am trying to hide complexity away Furthermore, Trevor Hilder [4] a member of the systems community (SCiO) [5] of which the development group is a subset, described using a similar method in his work. He applies a systems theory (VSM) [6] to large scale IT projects so I thought that it was good advice to follow as his method has congruence with the VSM. A larger version of the project is planned. There will be more questions and more pathologies as well as multiple users contributing to a data set to make a model of an organisation. It makes sense to follow his advice a larger scale project which could be drawing on his expertise. Underscoring all of this is a hunch. The VSM could be described as fractal, Trevor refers to his method as a fractal database, and in my mind TW is kinda fractal too. After all that, the case that has occurred in my XXL-MTC I have found never actually occurs in the problem at the moment! ALex [1] http://hough.tm.mbs.ac.uk/creativity/tao-in-the-art-of-the-minimal-test-case/ or http://tinyurl.com/yj7o953 [2] https://dl-web.getdropbox.com/get/OMMshared/OMM/OMMforSciO6july.html or http://tinyurl.com/yj7o953 [4] http://nailsoup.doodlekit.com/home [5] http://scio.org.uk [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_System_Model > > Tobias. > > > -- http://www.multiurl.com/g/64 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
