Ciao Bimlas A few comments you do NOT need to reply to.
I'm mainly commenting on mental processes prior to software tools. I think it's interesting, but not particularly helpful to you, now. bimlas wrote (slightly edited): > > me .. > > 467-1a INSOMNIA (sleep disorder) >> 732-2c INSOMNIA , 1976 (film) >> 1034-1a INSOMNIA, 1982 (film) >> >> >> The point is this example is the shown "title" would be in the caption >> field; the real Title is both a UID and human informative. >> > > ... I think it’s best if the notes don’t have a name, or at least treat it > separately from the UID, because if I change its content, its name might > give incorrect information about it. if I write a “986 Naming Notes in > Zettelkasten” note and then realize later that this methodology doesn’t ... > work ... I’d like to rename it “986 Naming Notes”. > > ... 986 as the title (... never changes), and "Naming Notes in > Zettelkasten" ... a caption. > Right. Makes great sense. Luhmann predated the PC so his approach was towards "don't revise, get it right at start" for both "index" & "title" and they are not clearly differentiated in his manual system. We have PCs so can hold them separately much easier now. Then they were not so separated. > A short UID is also good because e.g. if I make a graph from my notes, > their display will be uniform ... > Right. > The PROBLEM with going with an arbitrary UID (e.g. random nums; current >> date-time) is it has *no semantic content*. >> >> Luhmann's approach was to have "titling" that is both a unique identifier >> AND has some human meaningfulness >> > > Even if a note has a name, in fact it will never be completely clear > because its context determines what effect its content achieves. > For example, if a note is titled "String," it says virtually nothing, > because it could be related to programming as well as music. The context is > mostly given by the text of the link pointing to it. If we just list the > note names, it won’t be so clear why they’re included in a given context. > That is a VERY interesting point. And strongly right in one way and maybe wrong in another. The point is Luhmann did not have a computer so his mental process was likely different than ours now. His computer was largely in his head. Nonetheless he was able to achieve massive scale integration. MY point here is about that in "externalising the brain" to a program do we actually lose out? Get conceptually lazy? Neglect our inbuilt ability at pattern recognition? I'm not expecting you to answer that :-). But Luhmann remains a great example of exceptionally astute use of analogue simply structured data for purpose. (AND anticipating computers.) > Also, I don’t think it’s possible to give a title to every note because > there’s something so abstract that it can’t be summed up in a few words. > For example, give a title to your most adventurous dream. > Right. Again it devolves to the scholar's context. Pre computer there was the general idea in social science scholarship that you *don't write a note unless it has clear content.* In other words, pre computer, writing had less "semantic gaps". With the advent of computers abstract "holding spaces" became much easier. At the same time it probably has also, made one aspect of scholarship weaker by over externalising the "brain" too early in a thought process. Just comments 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/2180e79d-399c-4119-94bf-14eb6b6b9636%40googlegroups.com.
