On fragments/chunks/tiddlers philosophy, I entirely endorse Tony's point that one has to think dynamically about this. As a project develops, not only one's familiarity with the subject but also the actual work being done may shift scope.
Let me also just point out, for this discussion, that sometimes the author/builder of a site will be working at a level that is more fine-grained than the reader/consumer of a site. Still, it's helpful for me to start with a benchmark. Motivated by my work in studying Japanese, I want to suggest that there's something like a "sentence"-level unit below which one can have reference, but not competent assertion. And focusing on smaller bits can lead to bad habits. (My study has settled in with a brilliant zero-translation SRS program focused on whole model sentences, with gradual accretions in the vocabulary covered.) Switching back to TW, we can ask what are the sentence-like (assertible/endorsable) units for the project at hand, and treat those as natural starting-points. (In practice, it may be more like a paragraph, but a paragraph with a single sentence-like point at issue.) That doesn't mean that there's no point in having tiddlers for, say, a single word (like a noun), but then the function of that tiddler will be something like "This noun's function and connections are like so." One great use of the dynamic tables plugins is that when I realize that a set of tiddlers has gotten "overgrown" (carrying content beyond the "sentence"-worth that has emergent metadata structure to it), I can more easily set up a field, move content over into the field, and feel confident that the shift has been a clean one. Still, when I go to present information to students, I often want to emphasize various compound tiddlers... and though each one of these still has a single "sentence"-like point, the compound tiddlers (usually template and/or TOC-srtuctured, in my case) put the most pedagogically useful supporting bits in view as well. -Springer On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 9:19:16 AM UTC-4, TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > Ciao TonyM ... >> >> >> How do I decide? For me its based on decades of experience in IT with a >> conceptual approach to understanding and negotiating my way through >> complexity. >> >> Although I actively try and find ways to make my implicit knowledge >> explicit. >> > > Very good note. I picked out two great points to underline ... > > >> ... meta concepts I am developing on tiddlywiki is rapid and reiterative >> design methods > > > Right. Reiteration. Recursive. Self-aware. > > My point is this: TW is quite unusual in actually reasonably supporting > human cyclic cognitive process. > Of course NO computer yet can work as well on *the liminal* that humans > constantly sense, build, and act from. > But I'd guess the "fragment/tiddler" is quite close. > It encourages *appropriate reduction to salient partitions.* > > ... the answer to your question is a process rather than a rule. > > > Right. The heart parts are "fragment" yet "fragment" is not what it might > first look like. > Good fragments are tempered by your mind working in context for purpose. > > Thanks! > 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/0ef8a62a-dc7a-4514-8776-77fadc79ac96%40googlegroups.com.
