Hi Mat,
> 1) Conceptual confusion: TW does not, as far as I can tell, fulfill the
> general perception of what tags are: Wikipedia article Tag
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_%28metadata%29>, and Wordpress on
> Categories
> vs Tags <http://en.support.wordpress.com/posts/categories-vs-tags/>.
>
Interesting stuff, for sure. Please note, that there is no 1:1 relation to
what wikipedia or wordpress subsume under the notion *tags*, i,e, things
like meta-tags, and what a *tag* is and how it works in TiddlyWiki. Tags in
TiddlyWiki are of a rather well defined nature and so I find them not at
all to be congruent with the former ...and they don't have to be.
Considering static tiddlers, the question of "How do I model html
meta-tags?" is indeed an important one and there could be an established
consensus that anything defined with the prefix *meta--* will yield a meta
tag in the static representation, e.g.
meta--keywords: foo bar baz {{!!tags}}
> 2) Compromises: There are several aspects of tags that a user might miss
> out on if he cannot use words as tags. Differences in search behaviour from
> if they were tags. And, again, compromising the text is not necessarily OK;
> what should you do for a tiddler intended to depict Mona Lisa?
>
Feel free to use tags any way you want, and also fields, but be aware the
implications.
If you don't like those implications, your head might just meet a
brick-wall...
and it's really nobody's fault or task to watch out for how you decide to
move in TiddlyWiki.
3) Obstructed use case : Both the process Mario kindly details and Tobias'
> parent=>child restrictions force a lot of analysis.
>
There is no need at all to premeditate on structure, it comes about...
au-naturel.
> I love thinking and I love logic structures, but there is simply a place
> for ad hoc too, *particulary* in note taking tools and creative work.
>
Again, using tags as parents to a tiddler is not impinging on creativity.
In fact, the opposite is true. The more well defined a basic toolset is,
the easier it is to be truly creative. If "anything" is possible,
creativity is meaningless... because everything is arbitrary. Cretivity
comes about, imho, by making astounding use of the — sometimes incredibly
scarce and limited — resources at hand.
If nothing else, it can work as a transitory phase *before* structuring.
>
Like everything in a wiki — or in real-life — tags are fluid, dynamic and
emergent. Things are not set in stone just because one decides at some
point to assign to that poor tiddler some heavyweight category called a
"tag".
(Compare to e.g formal braintstorming: analysis/evaluation/judgement is
> directly detrimental in the initial stages and will simply *not* produce
> good results.)
>
Brainstorming, too, has rules to it. You are playing freely, but without
the boundaries set forth in the method. The idea of brainstorming is not
"do whatever you want".
A tool designed for very structured tagging is probably more about
> documentation than note taking. I just don't see why TW should be limited
> in this respect.
>
I'd like to understand better why you keep on expressing that as a
limitation. How exactly is it a limitation that is restricting you?
You are free to use tags in any way that make sense to *you*. If it works
for you, great! However, the way you use tags has consequences. When that
yields inconsistencies which wouldn't exist if you used a thing for what
it's designed for, then it's not for tags to change their behavior. You
wouldn't use a calculator as a scoop either, unless you wanted to make a
one-time joke of it.
TW perhaps being a tool more for documentation more than note taking,
>
I do not see how and why you distinguish the two. To me, it's literally the the
same process: dump stuff from my brain so as to not juggle it around in my
head alone.
> Just maybe there should, after all, be a theme specializing on a more
> impromptu and careless workflow (TW jazz!) rather than the conscientious
> current workflow.
>
It would surely be quite interesting to see what you'd invent there. I'm
far from suggesting that experiments like that would be pointless. To the
contrary. Structures and patterns emerge out of what first appeared as
chaos. Sometimes, though, chaos is just that... a lot of noise, so always
have some ear-plugs at hand. :D
ideally the input should be easy to refine (organize and structure) if the
> preference for this arises
>
I can see how you can turn Mozart into Jazz, the other way around, not
quite so much. Perhaps we've forgotten the art of that. To me, it's pretty
clear that those masters and geniuses and their symphonies were reflecting
more on patterns than chaos, patterns of scales, of rhythm, of harmony, of
balance... patterns ...and creatively interpreting those.
Considering the dynamic nature of TW, we could have different page
> templates, showing tools etc for the application at hand.
>
While TW5 already provides a big heap of functional variability, this is
indeed something very important for the core to provide... the means to
easily adapt and extend the user interface to different applications /
workflows / processing needs.
> Maybe called different *modes*? "Swithin' over to note-taking mode."
>
Is there a mechanism for switching page templates?
>
There are two sides to this, both of which the core actually does cater for
already...
- theme-switching / triggering on a page level
- view-mode switching / triggering on a tiddler level
Best wishes, Tobias.
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
