TonyM wrote: > > > Tiddlers are already unique, but they need not be unique over time, if > renamed. >
Re the specific examples I gave are *Luhmann naming*. 467-1a INSOMNIA (sleep disorder) > 732-2c IMSOMNIA , 1976 (film) > 1034-1a INSOMNIA, 1982 (film) They are *set once forever*. Never renamed That was the use case. I maybe did not make that clear enough? That schema presupposes good "feel" for the "field of endeavor". Such that the maker never goes back to alter titles. The other situations you are exploring are interesting too. The OP is broadly concerned with "fragment conception & handling". Use cases *vary. *That is central, I think, some cases you need to ... redo actual content others ... combine/list differently for changed ends others, again ... never change. Maybe the issue I started with should be reframed with END-NEEDS more central. I was most interested in exploring how meaning making interacts with tech systems in different ways, I guess. All three scenarios are viable in TW. All three imply different mental processes, ontology and realization code. Best wishes 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/c07c2e58-c99e-412c-a682-2f05177b6507%40googlegroups.com.
