![]() I think this is close to what Sohren suggests in his book.Įdit: Moreover, if at some point you want to create a structure note because you find things too messy then you can immediately extract one from the list since related notes are close together due to the IDs. I just go to the index, jump to the subject that interests me and I see all the interconnections between the notes reflected on the IDs. ![]() So I have no need to carefully manage any structure notes. This hierarchy was created spontaneously. For example, if you take a look at Zkn3 I didn't created any structure note that needs to be updated with new entries. (what we would call index/hub/structure/MOC notes I think the reason I find this method superior is that the structure itself starts to unfold spontaneously as you insert new notes. These links were in the form of links within other notes as well as his index notes and top-level notes. ![]() He even said he would just throw a new note into the back of the ZK and give it the next sequential number if he didn't immediately know of a better place for it because it didn't matter as long as he had the unique ID to link the notes together. This seems to be an evolution in his use of his slip box that I presume arose from seeing the power of the cross links, allowing him to relax the focus on the hierarchical IDs. I have a weird feeling there is something potentially beneficial in this approach but I'm just not seeing it.Īlso Luhmann seems to have evolved his system from using the ID as the hierarchy of ideas into later referring to it solely as a means to get a unique ID for the note so it could be referenced later. I'm curious what actual benefit you get from encoding hierarchy in the note titles themselves? How is this conceptually different than placing each note into its own enclosing folder?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |