InfoQube IM - Community

Submitted by Paul_J_Miller on 2020/01/04 06:47

I have been busy recently re-organising my notes so I haven't been posting much. This is a long task and it isn't over yet. The thing which triggered this post is the fact that Pierre recently posed the question of whether the 'Related Items' feature was of any use or benefit, this question came up in an unrelated post and my answer was that it was useful and was of benefit.

However this question deserves a more complete answer.

The 'Related Items' feature is in my view essential as it enables the Zettelkasten method to be implemented. This article should illustrate how important this is. The article explains the Zettelkasten method and from this the importance of 'Related Items' should become apparent. Another feature which would be of great benefit would be [[Wiki Links]]. These two features complement each other, they are not just different ways of doing the same thing, they overlap but they are not identical.

The 'Related Items' feature is much more useful than placing hyperlinks within a note or article. Hyperlinks are cumbersome to insert, [[wiki links]] would be better.

In use the [[wiki links]] would provide a way of linking to other articles from one specific point within an article but 'related items' are related to the whole article. There is a subtle difference.

I am now using the 'Related Items' to give an overall structure to my zettelkasten notes. My database consists of Notes and Articles, notes contain just one single idea and are heavily linked, they are all in one grid called 'Zettel', articles are longer pieces and are all outside the 'Zettel' grid.

In conclusion the 'Related Items' feature is not just useful but essential to a working Zettelkasten.

Thank you Pierre !!

Comments

Hi Paul,

Thanks for this post. Very interesting reading on ZettelKasten.

I'm glad that Related Items are useful for you.

Understood too that it does not replace [[ ... ]] links altogether.

When implementing it (within the next 3-4 months probably) how about if there was a command to create Related Item links from the doc pane [[ ... ]] links ?

[edit] Further reading the article, it seems an essential tool is to be able to slice a Doc pane content into a series of items / sub-items, based on Heading styles (basically, the opposite of the Copy as HTML outline command) [edit]

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

[quote=Pierre_Admin]

When implementing it (within the next 3-4 months probably) how about if creating a [[ ... ]] link also created a Related Item link ?

[/quote]

That is an interesting question. I would be curious to hear other peoples thoughts on this.

My initial reaction was 'no of course not !' but then I examined why I had that reaction and found that it was an emotional (subjective) reation not a rational (objective) reaction.

Thinking about it rationally a [[wiki link]] is a more specific related item link with the context for the link given by the text in which it appears. Whereas a 'related item' link is a link whose context is the whole note (item).

Another difference is that the [[wiki link]] has a source and a destination whereas the 'related item' is truly bi-directional. There is no indication at the destination that there is a link which points here.

The two can exist simultaneously between the same items but there is no need for them to do so. In other words you can have each one without the other.

I am currently undecided, I will have to think about this and the implications.

It would solve the 'what points here ?' quandry. It is sometimes useful to know what links are pointed to this page. Having everything generate a 'related item' link would be useful for this but the list might get a bit long for pages which are the nexus of a subject.

ConnectedText has two modes one where the structure of the page is edited and the other where the page is rendered (viewed). When the page is viewed the commands which appear on the page are executed and the output from these commands appears on the page. In ConnectedText the structure of a page is defined by a complex markup language, commands start with [[$ and wiki links start with [[ , if you include the command [[$ASK: [$LINKTO (($CURRENTTOPIC))] | list ]] on the page that command will be rendered as a list of links to pages which link to this page.

Having an Edit mode and a View mode never really appealed to me as you don't get to see the results of your commands until you switch back to View mode, in this sense it gets in the way of your thinking. I like instant feedback, however the ConnectedText model is extremely powerful and I sometimes miss this.

In InfoQube you can have items with duplicate names. In many other note taking programs you cannot do this. I don't think my notebase has any items with duplicate names but this could complicate the implementation of [[wiki links]]. In ConnectedText when you are editing a page after you type the initial [[ and start typing a name the program drops down a list of pages with a name matching what has been typed, this list gets shorter as new characters are typed and at any point you may click on a name to complete the typing. MyInfo does the same, although with MyInfo there is no way of getting a list of pages with links to the current page.

Hmmm ... maybe it would be a good idea to create a 'related item' link at the same time as creating a [[wiki link]] because it would solve the 'what points here ?' quandry. However it would increase the size and complexity of the database, but in these days of multi terabyte hard disks who cares?

Hi Paul,

Note that my post was edited and a command to create Related Item links is now proposed instead of something automatic

Also, though not yet implemented, Related Item links support uni-directional links, not just bi-directional ones

As to the "what points here" question, there are a couple ways to handle it. One of which is using a Surface-like view dedicated to Related items links (the current IQ Surface is using on parent-child links)

Food for thought !

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

[quote=Pierre_Admin]As to the "what points here" question, there are a couple ways to handle it. One of which is using a Surface-like view dedicated to Related items links (the current IQ Surface is using on parent-child links)

[/quote]

this sounds great (I dont think we can currently see the extended family of related links?)

This is of particular interest:

[quote]

you should follow some key principles.

The principle of atomicity: The term was coined by Christian Tietze. It means that each note should contain one idea and one idea only. This makes it possible to link ideas with a laser focus.
The principle of autonomy: Each note should be autonomous, meaning it should be self-contained and comprehensible on its own. This allows notes to be moved, processed, separated, and concatenated independently of its neighbors. It also ensures that notes remain useful even if the original source of information disappears.
Always link your notes: Whenever you add a note, make sure to link it to already existing notes. Avoid notes that are disconnected from other notes. As Luhmann himself put it, “each note is just an element that derives its quality from the network of links in the system. A note that is not connected to the network will be lost, will be forgotten by the Zettelkasten” (original in German).
Explain why you’re linking notes: Whenever you are connecting two notes by a link, make sure to briefly explain why you are linking them. Otherwise, years down the road when you revisit your notes, you may have no idea why you connected them.
Use your own words: Don’t copy and paste. If you come across an interesting idea and want to add it to your Zettelkasten, you must express that idea with your own words, in a way that you’ll be sure to understand years later. Don’t turn your Zettelkasten into a dump of copy-and-pasted information.
Keep references: Always add references to your notes so that you know where you got an idea from. This prevents plagiarism and makes it easy for you to revisit the original source later on.
Add your own thoughts to the Zettelkasten: If you have thoughts of your own, add them to the Zettelkasten as notes while keeping in mind the principle of atomicity, autonomy, and the need for linking.
Don’t worry about structure: Don’t worry about putting notes in neat folders or into unique preconceived categories. As Schmidt put it, in a Zettelkasten “there are no privileged positions” and “there is no top and no bottom.” The organization develops organically.
Add connection notes: As you begin to see connections among seemingly random notes, create connection notes, that is, specific notes whose purpose is to link together other notes and explain their relationship.
Add outline notes: As ideas begin to coalesce into themes, create outline notes. An outline note is a note that simply contains a sequence of links to other notes, putting those other notes into a particular order to create a story, narrative, or argument.

[/quote]

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

These principles are very important for the Zettelkasten method and I try to maintain them but sometimes I am not as rigorous as I should be. My notebase has many parts, the Zettel grid is at the heart of it. The Zettel grid is a network of small heavily linked and heavily tagged notes. It is my Zettelkasten.

Outside the Zettel grid there are other grids which contain longer articles and grids used for other purposes. Outside the Zettel InfoQube is just used like a multi document word processor with outlining and a list maker. Many of the articles are based either in whole or in part on the material in the Zettel grid. One of the features I miss from ConnectedText is ((inclusion)) but I don't expect to see that in InfoQube, it is probably not practical.

I can highly recommend the book 'How to Take Smart Notes' by Sönke Ahrens.

Thanks, Paul. Any details about your system are welcome. I'm especially interested in you Zettel grid.

1) How do you organize notes within the Zettel grid? For example, how do you find notes on a particular topic there. Tags column filter? Category checklist?

2) How do you track source info for each note? Separate columns for author, source title etc? Source info as subitems below the note? Tags?

3) How do you handle duplicate info? If two authors cover the same material in a similar way, do you just create two separate notes and not worry about the overlap / duplication? Or do you combine the separate notes under a new header so the similar info stays together? Or something else?

Wayne

Methinks my Zettel grid isn't as well organised as you might imagine.

The points included by Pierre from the linked article have been discussed on the ConnectedText forums at great length. There was a rivalry between the 'Grainy' and 'Brainy' viewpoints where the 'Grainy' camp favoured many short notes and the 'Brainy' camp favoured fewer longer articles. I was in the 'Grainy' camp. Although my notebase does contain long articles they are not in the Zettel grid. The main problem with the 'Grainy' vs. 'Brainy' arguement is that it assumes that one strategy is appropriate for the whole notebase, I would argue that this is not the case.

My Zettel notes are kept as simple as possible, any references to sources are text or links at the end of the note. There really should only be one idea or concept expressed in a note. In that way ideas and concepts can be put together like Lego to build more complex narratives. This is where I start to miss the ((inclusion)) feature in ConnectedText.

1) The structure of the notes in the grid is not as important as you might imagine, with the exception that I try to keep the structure unchanged. I don't sort or re-organise the structure except for adding new items its structure remains as it developed, this is so I can remember where things are. Navigation is easier than search ^{1}. The top level items are the items in the order that they were originally entered. The children of these items are the items (cards) which were added between the original items (cards) expanding on the top level items.

The real structure is in how they are linked and tagged. In ConnectedText you could relate topics and assign them to categories (tags) just by dragging and dropping. Everything is tagged and everything is linked, Pierre has developed a wonderful hierarchical tagging system. The related items link was a game changer and I am currently in the process of going through the items converting links to related items in most cases.

The structure of links and tags is where the real magic begins, there is a certain critical mass of information beyond which the structure starts to reveal information which was not apparent from the data which was put into the notebase. I call this emergent structure. As Steve Jobs once said "Creativity is all about connecting things".

But the Zettel grid is not the only grid containing Zettel notes, I like to create clusters of ideas. A grid created on the fly with a small subset of items from the Zettel grid which can be re-arranged at will as long as the original item in the Zettel grid is not moved or changed. These grids just contain clones (instances) of the Zettel items. The grids can be used and then either deleted or kept.

2) The source info for each item is a little chaotic. It is usually a text note and/or link at the end of the note, never a child item. But each seperate author gets a tag as do many other sources (like Wikipedia and MEDLINE). Not every note has source information and some of the information I have has decayed (books I no longer have, websites which have disappeared).

3) I think you will find that even if two authors cover the same information they explain things in different ways or come at the problem from a slightly differnt angle. It is unlikely that they will be identical. I would put two notes with their different sources and link them together perhaps with a 'glue' note linked to both to explain the similarities and differences.

{1} source :- 'The Science of Managing our Digital Stuff' by Ofer Bergman & Steve Whittaker ISBN 9780262035170, p161 to 166

[quote=Paul_J_Miller]3) I think you will find that even if two authors cover the same information they explain things in different ways or come at the problem from a slightly differnt angle. It is unlikely that they will be identical. I would put two notes with their different sources and link them together perhaps with a 'glue' note linked to both to explain the similarities and differences.[/quote]

I like this idea -- using a 'glue' note to describe the relationship between two related items.

Are you actively doing this Paul? If so, where/how do you store the glue notes?

The 'glue' note is just another note in the Zettel, there is nothing special about it.

Paul,

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I've gotten some good ideas from it. Ive also started going through other threads and in a previous one you linked to an article on structure:

https://zettelkasten.de/posts/three-layers-structure-zettelkasten/

That's one of the best articles I've seen on note-taking and the approach there is close to what I'm trying to do. I'm more of a list / outline / grid person for organizing info. I tried The Brain once and didn't like it. I dislike mind maps where info is scattershot around a central topic. I do use mindmaps but organize the info differently (eg collapsible charts). But it's possible to have elements of both in one system, as described in your linked article.

I do try to create standalone "Info Blocks" as one researcher calls them, but they're fairly big. If for example, I'm looking at a science topic, I might have an info block for a particular hypothesis, and underneath that a list of "Pro's" (evidence for) and "Con's" (evidence against). I want to see all those items together in one compact list so they can be seen in one view. I definitely don't want to enter each pro and con as a separate item with links to other pro's and con's.

Wayne

Thanks for starting this thread and providing the link. I've looked at Zettelkasten before. I've definitely tried to incorporate some of its principles but the system on whole, for me, sounds impractical for research note-taking. But I'm always interested in new takes on note-taking and you can get things of value from systems even if you don't adopt it in toto.

I've spent endless hours thinking about how to implement a complete system of note-taking and am still stumped. I know what I want to accomplish, in general, but don't know how to accomplish it in detail. So I end up trying a hodge podge of tags, links, multiple parents, and related items along with links to external files.

It's frustrating because I never have that feeling that I have a solid system I can build on (as they discuss in the linked article).

I use InfoQube primarily for research. These are the things I need to accomplish:

1) Take notes on books, articles, papers, and videos.

2) Condense notes into summary notes that can function independently (Zettelkasten principle)

3) Gather summary notes from multiple sources into different topic groups

4) Create one set of notes that incorporate summary notes from multiple sources.

5) Tie together books, papers, articles where appropriate. (for example, for a scientific paper, I need links to each article or book that discusses that paper; for each article or book, I need links to all the papers they discuss, etc).

In addition to the above i want to be able to see, for example, all articles written by a given author, all articles on a given topic, etc.

I know InfoQube can easily handle everything I want to do, I just don't know how to do it in detail. I try this, I try that, I find problems with this and that, I think of something else i want to do, etc, endlessly.

So I end up just continuing with note-taking by individual sources and making ad hoc connections as I go until I can figure out a final system.

Wayne

Thinking out loud here, but I wonder if a cross between the IQSurface and CardView could be the best UI to implement a Zettel "view"...

i.e. Cards showing Items related...

Pierre_Admin

IQ Designer

The Surface is good but there is the possibility that it could be a lot more useful. Including Cards on the Surface might not be the best option, the result might be cluttered if there were more than a few cards. In my opinion the title of the item in a small box is all that is necessary as long as the content of the selected item appears in something like the Doc pane in another part of the screen or on a second monitor.

I think there are two use cases for mapping which are both slightly different from each other.

The first case is where you are manipulating a cluster of ideas to explore the possibilities. One reason to create a map is to utilise the strengths of how the brain treats spatial information differently than text. In my view, it’s not a situation where one is better than the other, they are both good approaches for generating new insights. I kind of imagine it like holding a cluster of ideas in my hands as if it were a Rubik’s cube and I were to hold it one way (outline) and then twist it here or there (concept map) and then turn it upside down (stream of consciousness writing) all to explore my understanding of the ideas and where they connect or relate to things I already know.

In this case you want to be able to manipulate the map and move things around within it. Perhaps you want to make new connections. In this case it would be useful to be able to manipulate the aesthetics of the map, colours, shapes, thickness of lines, how the lines connect, etc. When you move things around you want the map to remember the arrangement so it appears the same next time you open it. In this case it is not necessary for the map to be centred on the item which has the focus unless it is a very large map.

If it is a very large map then there is a case for splitting it into two or more maps, but usually it is a mistake to have a map larger than can be comfortably viewed on one screen. One way around this is to have an element which can be placed on a map which could contain another map so a map could have submaps. This can be a good way to reduce the complexity (size) of a large map. Clicking on this element would open the submap.

The second case is for browsing through the notebase, the item of interest is at the centre of the map on screen and the items it is related to are arranged automatically around it. In this case you don't need to see the whole map just the things which connect to the item of interest (and maybe the things which connect to them) also you don't need to be able to arrange the map, it would be more convenient to have all the 'housekeeping' set globally and rendered automatically.

A good arrangement would be parents above, children below, siblings to one side and related items to the other side. This arrangement would be automatically generated by the computer with no need to move or arrange things. This would allow drag and drop to be used for other purposes. Clicking on an item would make it the new centre of attention and the screen would be redrawn with the new item at the centre with everything it was connected to arranged automatically around it.

Another possibility is to expand the centre of the map so things diminish in size towards the edges. You only see the centre clearly but that is all that is necessary. Imagine if a very large map was pasted onto a sphere and the viewpoint were close to the sphere, things at the centre would appear large but they would diminish towards the horizon (edge of the screen).

In both cases the content of the selected item would appear in the Doc pane.

I hope this all makes sense.