Mat wrote: > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/s9Y_w85282I/ZsIToC88AAAJ >
this ... *(me) HOW small is a good fragment? And how would you know?* >>> >>> > (mat) I can answer this... in a more general way but also with an exact > answer: > A tiddler, i.e the smallest semantically meaningful bit of information, > should be EXACTLY as small as the context demands for it to be meaningful. > There is not reason to split up, say, the huge Encyclopedia Britannica > tiddler if one never needs any subpart of it (and if the system can handle > such a big tiddler). > And it is pointless to have a tiddler for each ingredient in your pancake > recipe if those tiddlers are never used in any other context. Apart from fact you more aware than me I asked a related question afore, very good answer fit to the issue. What I think interesting. Very muted in previous notes on this. Is the enormous role of ... 1 -- cognition in knowing IN ADVANCE. It may be a mystery left as such. But HOW do you know what is the right approach on chunking? 2 -- I think the main thing you, Mat, flag is CONTEXT. That matches my experience. Yet knowing that context is not trivial to proving. Is "FRAGMENT" scope ONLY intuitively known, rather than formally definable? If so .... then ...? Asking. TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" 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/tiddlywiki/07c8cdd6-a97c-4624-bdb9-a042b8c7eba0%40googlegroups.com.
