Hay, I am all for chunking, but we must realise moving a chunk is important, rather than copying it, Chunks need to keep their name, if we do make copies, or we can loose data with duplicates.
Another point is combining chunks can remain virtual with chunks remaining themself. We could find a way to do sections like in TWC to access chunks within tiddlers, but this is a slippery slope. So things can be chunked until they can be chunked no more, then can be collected and ordered to combine them virtually, but avoid physically combining them unless there is an identified reason to de-chunk. This can be compared to Analysis and Synthesis but in this case synthesis is virtual and flexible. We never loose the gains of analysis.The chucks we find. Careful chunking will always record what we divided, to do the chunking and maintain this information in the system. Regards Tony On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 4:02:40 PM UTC+10, TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > > TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>> >>> Is "FRAGMENT" scope ONLY intuitively known, rather than formally >>> definable? If so .... then ...? >>> >> > Mat responded ... > >> ...then the important thing is that we have a system that allows the data >> to change along with the changes of our feeble minds. To merge or split the >> fragments as we see fit. IMO TW does this better than any other software I >> know of BUT there is definite room for experimentation and improvement. For >> example, it would be cool if we could drag'n drop to merge tiddlers. And if >> the excision functionality was more accessible. >> > > That's interesting. "More ways to re-chunk" ?? Sounds right, to make data > and concepts of that data more explicitly re-chunkable ?? That loop, to > re-do fragment size & scope, I think fits human meaning making process > better than idea of "getting it right"--which completely overlooks we are > inherently iterative. > > FWIW, In my own case, I am very interested in facilitating associative > thinking. For example have a wiki of thousands of phrases (sub sentence) > that you can randomise and then transclude and save interesting combos of. > Repeat at will. > > Basically, a William Burroughs "cut-up" machine. That use of random > "fragments" supports associative cognition and pattern (new story) > recognition in a helpful low overhead way. > > Thoughts > 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/f398746a-71a4-4b43-be21-82bc1fe44ca1%40googlegroups.com.
