*Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” idea is that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the *content* of a note can still change so much as to make the reference not effective anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as you can avoid having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking for won't move so far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find it, anyway (probably not more than one link away).
It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool if you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have an incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” tiddlers all the time. *TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in applying one notes system to everything. There are likely very few people who have needed to work with notes of such a wide variety of types that they can speak confidently on all of them. We've found some general patterns, but they don't all work well for every purpose. On the topic of places where the author's mechanism would be good, I've wondered if it would be handy for project or work diaries…almost like a more general Git commit log. I used a custom PowerShell script called “Daylog” at work for a year or two that worked kind of like this – you wrote a text file with a bunch of chronological entries in it and could chain them together into topics, responsibilities, todo items and notes on their completion, etc. *Si,* I realized I never responded to your characterization of my Random Thoughts as kind of like incremental note-taking way up-thread. I think it might be a little dangerous to attribute too much intentionality to that structure, because I started it when I was 14 years old (!) and chronological bits was just the obvious structure to put it in since I didn't really know much about notes at the time. But that said, it has turned out to work well over the following 11+ years, at least once I went back and added ID numbers to it so I could cross-reference things, so it can't be too bad of a system. Perhaps the main difference between it and evergreen notes is that it's optimized for ease of insertion, while evergreen notes are optimized for ease of later use and flexibility of thinking. Those are, I think, fundamentally irreconcilable; you can reduce the weaknesses of one system in the opposite area, but nothing is ever going to be great at both. So IMO the best option is two complementary systems (or parts of one system) where you can move things from the quick-write one to the flexible-thinking one when they become important. I have a vague draft on the principles of RT as I've accidentally discovered them here: https://zettelkasten.sorenbjornstad.com/#SketchOnCommonplacing On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 5:52:20 AM UTC-5 ludwa6 wrote: > That's an important point @TT about the WHY of "Luhmann's Rule," i would > say, regarding immutability of the index field. > In the world of hard-copy artifacts he was designing, this makes perfect > sense... And also on the WWW, still today, where the problem of link-rot is > a serious PITA. > > BUT in the domain of a standalone TW instance with the Relink plugin -e.g. > my own desktop Digital Garden- that rule becomes a serious impediment to > the kind of refactoring that is wanted. > > OTOH: In case of a public TW instance, where you want to encourage content > sharing & reuse via permalinks, this is where one might do well to apply > Luhmann's Rule. > Still: i find it hard to forbear from changing names to reflect changes in > my thinking and/or popular usage. A constant struggle! > > /walt > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:36:12 AM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> Ciao Si, >> >> FOOTNOTE ON ZETTELKASTEN >> >> Luhmann's Zettelkasten were, of course, only on paper. He was very >> dedicated to NEVER changing the INDEX to an entry. >> He never said, or implied, you could not UPDATE an entry if you wanted >> too. >> The Zettelkasten thing is about NOT spawning clone entities, rather >> fixing the Index of one forever. >> >> Best wishes >> TT >> >> >> On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:18:48 UTC+2 Si wrote: >> >>> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it >>> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I >>> thought it was worth sharing here. >>> >>> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule >>> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a >>> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: >>> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/ >>> >>> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to >>> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building >>> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from. >>> >>> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any >>> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you >>> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar >>> opposites? >>> >>> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts. >>> >> -- 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/26ac7137-cf1e-41f8-9a81-28b8d07872b2n%40googlegroups.com.
