Ervinn

I don't know how difficult would it be to developed a new feature where "allies" Thought could be created from a Thought. Both would point to the same data. When you modify one, the modification would be reflected in the other as well, because basically there are the same.

However they could have their separate type, tags, color, and icon, only they would point to the same data. A visual indication would be needed though to indicate that a Thought has allies.

 

This would be good when you prefer consolidated Thoughts, without losing the capability to get to the "same" data from different ways.

 

Even the name of the Thought could be the same for all allies, if that is easier to implement.




Quote
zenrain
Just to clear up confusion, I think the term is alias.

Generally aliases are carbon copies, although the idea of adding different icons and colors is interesting.
What do you see as being the advantage of an alias vs. creating a thought with the same name, and pointing it to the same data? I'm just trying to grasp what additional functionality an alias would have.
I could definitely see an advantage if it's a duplicate and updating one thought will update another (especially in different brains), but this wouldn't be possible if each had their own information.

Windows 7
J-1.6.0_22
--
OSX 10.6.3
Java SE 6
Quote
Ervinn

Quote:

Just to clear up confusion, I think the term is alias.

Yes that what I meant, alias, thanks.

 

Quote: Generally aliases are carbon copies, although the idea of adding different icons and colors is interesting.

I was not thinking about a copy, I was thinking that they would point to the same note text, the same attachments, but they could have different type, and tags.  Yes, the Thought's icon may have to be the same, since that is stored in the attachment folder. The type icons however, may could be different, I don’t know. 

 

Quote: What do you see as being the advantage of an alias vs. creating a thought with the same name, and pointing it to the same data? I'm just trying to grasp what additional functionality an alias would have.

 

Basically this would give the capability to assign multiple types for a Thought. For example, in one part of your brain you have a Thought representing a Life insurance policy. This Thought is part of a structure with parents and children, plus with a type "Insurance". That Thought would come out in a “Insurance” type report.

 

In other part of your brain you have a Thought structure representing automatic recurring payments. Your life insurance is a recurring automatic payment so you want to link to it. However the Life insurance now can not belong to types. In this case I would create an alias for the Life Insurance Thought and assign the type for payments.

 

So the same Thought would be included in either in an “Insurance” type report, and in “Payments” type report.

 

I don't know about the parents and the children, those could be the same or different. If those are different, then switching between the aliases has to be solved.

 

Quote:

I could definitely see an advantage if it's a duplicate and updating one thought will update another (especially in different brains), but this wouldn't be possible if each had their own information.

Having the alias feature would reduce the need for separate brains. It would be easier consolidating data in one brain.  

 

Quote
NorthFarm
For me the Insurance policy thought and the Insurance payment would be two distinct thoughts as they are not the same to me. I'd have the payment as a child to the policy thought.
Another way of find payment thought throughout your brain could be to tag them instead of making distinct thoughts.
Regards Hans Henrik Nørregaard
----------------------
TB 8.0.2.2 (Pro Combo) Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Java 1.8.0_121
...and now testing TheBrain 9.0.158.0 :-)
Quote
dyslucksia
I've been using alias thoughts for some time now, but not quite in the same sense. To me, an alias is "another name for the same thing", i.e., a synonym. For example, if I file all my stuff on cars under car, then a few months later forget I did this and start looking for it under auto, when I finally find it, I would then create an alias jump thought to car named "auto >", the ">" telling me it's only an alias and not the primary thought.

My alias thoughts have their own color (type) and I even have a macro so that when I click an alias in Instant Search Results, I am taken straight to the primary thought.

On the other hand, what you describe sounds more like what I would have termed a connecting thought, a thought that makes connection between two main trees of Thoughts within a Brain. Often there's not even the need for one, but they can be handy. Above all, avoid duplicating data anywhere in your Brain. Here are two suggestions.

1) Create a connecting thought named Life Insurance, Payments and make it a child link of both Life Insurance and Payments, using context sensitive naming, so that to Life Insurance it will look like Payments, and to Payments it will look like Life Insurance. If you use tags you might as Hans suggests assign this thought two tags, one for Life Insurance, Payments. This will make it easier for you to split the Life Insurance and Payments trees should you need to do so later.

2) Create a child Thought of Life Insurance named Payments and a child thought of Payments named Life Insurance, then connect them by a jump link which can be cut if you wish to split the trees.

Hope this helps.

PB 5.5.2.1 on Windows XP, J-1.6.0_17
Quote
Ervinn
Thanks for the suggestions. Ye, 'alias' is not the right word. I think, I was looking for a way to assign multiple types for a Thought. The "connected" Thought would be good to have as well, though.


Quote
Ervinn
I've just come up with a better name. It would be called a "spouse" relationship.

A Thought can have children, parents, and jumps. This new feature would introduce "spouses" to a Thought. There would be no lines connected the spouses. They were just put top on each other like cards; make it slightly visable the bottom part. Clicking any of the spouses would activate that spouse. In this case they do not have to share data. Each spouse could have its own data, because they are always shown together never apart, this would be great to consolidate data to one area.

In my example above, I would have a Life Insurance Thought. Later I want to include this Thought to payments; I would create a spouse Thought and call it Life Insurance payment.

Those two Thought would be always together in the same structure. Spouses would have the same children and parents, and may be different jumps.

Later we could introduce tha divorce spouse, which could have different children and different parents. This would be similar what was discussed above; like a connecting "gateway" Thought relationship.

Probably it would make sense to allow to link together two existing Thought as a spouse, and unlink them later.

---
Spouse relationships would be also useful when you have different version of the same document. A new spouse Thought would be created when creating a new version of the same document. There is no need for lines and navigations, it would be displayed together, which makes sense.

But there could be many other use for a spouse relationship.


 





Quote
dyslucksia
How about a "mistress" Thought too? After all, the plural of spouse is spice.
PB 5.5.2.1 on Windows XP, J-1.6.0_17
Quote
Darkstar

I've suggested this capability before--- under "User Defined Views". Having one thought capable of being represented in different ways, depending on the context (the user defined view).

In what I've suggested before, the thought  "Life Insurance" would be a drillable view--- that is, it is a CONTAINER thought, displayed as a normal thought (with a little box container icon on it, just as we have arrows and notes indicator icons), holding the two thoughts "Insurance Policy" and the child thought "Payments, Life Insurance". "Insurance Policy" would have the type "Insurance", and the "Payments," child thought would have the type "Recurring Payment". Reports that would display either contained thought would show the container thought when in any view that has it (and would show "Life Insurance C> Insurance Policy" and "Life Insurance C> Payments, Life Insurance" when doing searches/reports with the option "Include out of view thoughts" or "Expand contained thoughts results".

This functionality would allow us to create our own "mini-brains" inside a brain, have it only show and report on thoughts inside that mini-brain (so none of your clients would see anything other then what's in their "view", or you can safely do a "Universal Brain", and when at work, you are in your "Work" view, and there won't be any odd or embarassing thoughts that are not work approved leaking over from other parts of your brain by accident). By having CONTAINER thoughts (which are just a concrete representation of a particular user defined view), you can then have multiple LEVELS of concept detail or abstraction--- and you can still see all the appropriately "included" thoughts of views in the "encompassing" view.

In the purest design, a thought would be allowed to have an individual icon, type, and notes in every view, and its links and attachments would be filterable by view (you could only have it show 1 out of 5 attachments in a particular view if that is all that is appropriate to that context). But I don't think PB could do that with its current design, which is why I came up with the "Container" thought idea--- with the bonus of it allowing for representing other user views in any user view.
-Darkstar
Quote
Ervinn
Quote:

This functionality would allow us to create our own "mini-brains" inside a brain, have it only show and report on thoughts inside that mini-brain (so none of your clients would see anything other then what's in their "view", or you can safely do a "Universal Brain", and when at work, you are in your "Work" view, and there won't be any odd or embarassing thoughts that are not work approved leaking over from other parts of your brain by accident). By having CONTAINER thoughts (which are just a concrete representation of a particular user defined view), you can then have multiple LEVELS of concept detail or abstraction--- and you can still see all the appropriately "included" thoughts of views in the "encompassing" view.



I don't quit understand your suggestion, here, I still prefer having a spouse relationship.

If you suggesting multiple type capabilities, then I agree.

Personally, I am not in favour of having multiple views, per say. I think theBrain made a mistake to provide different views, like Normal, Expanded and Outline. I bet that each user picks one of the three and use it most of the time. Like, I am always using the Normal view.  They've divided their effort to provide three, instead of focus on one and make it outstanding and super.  PB would be much better having one view with customisable features, like how that one view would operate.

There are some features in expanded view what I like, but I can not use them because I am a "Normal-view" user. The same may apply to an "Expanded-view" user. And who knows, they may had time to provide a spouse relationship instead of the three different views.  






 

Quote
dyslucksia
I like Darkstar's concept of Container Thoughts a lot though its implementation could take a number of different paths.

Right now PB's developers are only starting to recognize the need for sequestration of Thoughts in the plex by bringing in Reports filtering, but the problem here is that you have to have the appropriate tag selected in Reports for this trick to work. If you wanted Reports to stay showing Thoughts filtered by Last Activated, bad luck - you'll just have to keep switching filters. This isn't a permanent solution.

(Actually, there is one more precedent for this. When Tags first became respectable in v5.0, they were allowed to be visible in the Plex on their own and with their child Thoughts, but not in Normal or other Views. We can change a Parent Thought into a Tag and vice versa, but this is the only way into or out of the Plex. Crude. Amazing that they can't allow us to make Tags children of Thoughts, considering Tags are so similar to Thoughts in so many other ways. This would also be a neat way to create a hierarchy of tags, by making them children (or even jumps) of a hierarchy of parent Thoughts. But I digress.)

Before Container Thoughts, Darkstar also suggested User Views restricted to certain groups of Thoughts. This is equivalent to hiding certain Thoughts by assigning the attribute "hidden" to a type, or better still, a tag. We can hide/unhide an individual tag hint in the plex, so operationally this shouldn't be any problem at all. After all, we can mark Thoughts as Private for export.

(I seem to remember we all discussed how nice it would be to hide a Thought simply by tagging it. It was such a logical thing to have, it only seemed a release or three away from becoming reality...)

Returning to the present, Darkstar's Container idea is somewhat different, almost similar to Virtual Thoughts in a way. Whereas by tagging individual Thoughts with a cloak of invisibility we could sprinkle them around the whole Brain, the concept of a container appears to limit them to children of a particular parent (but of course as many parents as needed can be containers too). Orphans need not apply.

Here a conundrum raises its head. If we wish to make a group of child Thoughts invisible in the Plex for privacy purposes, how should we indicate this? If we have a container symbol, this will tell the world that there is a secret compartment here, like a safe built into a wall. On the other hand, if there is no icon, how will the user know that a container has been created? Should container access be password-protected? (That would make it a nice little money-spinner.) Should all Thoughts within a container be automatically be typed Private when export time arrives?

If there is a Thought named Payments, will it be able to access the same container as Life Insurance, so that "Life Insurance, Payments" can show up as one of its children?

After mulling this over, my conclusions are that adding containers just introduces an extra level of complexity we don't really need since we already have tags, not to mention types. Introduce containers and you might have to factor that into Reports, Selection Box and Advanced Search. Adding an invisibility attribute to a tag would do it all, and we already have tags.

Tag all a Thought's childen with an invisibility tag and you have a container. The children are immediately invisible to all their parents. It's like permanent Report filtering in Inverse Mode.

All the recent anguish wherein Peter was robbed to pay Paul (taking away OR filtering in Reports to give us AND) would be a thing of the past, since filtering in the Plex AND SELECTION BOX could be done equally well by invisibility tags. Doing it through Reports is fine, too, but (a) it's not permanent, and (b) it's limited to one tag at a time.

Tag a whole bunch of Thoughts around the Brain with invisibility and this gives you a User View. Add password protection to all tags imbued with Romulan powers, and all paranoid humanoids from the banks to the military will be falling over each other to be first in line to buy it.

(Added - although BrainEKP probably already has it)

PB 5.5.2.1 on Windows XP, J-1.6.0_17
Quote
dyslucksia
Rather than edit the previous post, I forgot to mention that I've been cloaking my Thoughts for a long time now, simply by forgetting them. I changed the forgotten color from zombie gray to a nice dark blue to signify that although they were clinically dead, they still had one foot on the astral plane so were capable of returning from the afterlife. You can see this in action if you download my AutoHotkey Macros brain.

In this, I have 100 numbered Thoughts (each representing a macro), far too many to display on the Plex each time I want to see one or just a few. So I divided them into groups of 10, each with a normal, visible parent, then also made all of them children of a master Thought named All, which I then conveniently Forgot. Every time I wanted to parade them all before me, I select Show Forgotten Thoughts, and up they all pop like Chinese terracotta warriors.

Thus All acts somewhat as a container thought, although to follow this concept through to the letter, I'd have to Forget all the child Thoughts too. No matter, it works like a charm. I have several thoughts named All that do just this. Giving them all the same name makes them easy to find.

PB 5.5.2.1 on Windows XP, J-1.6.0_17
Quote
Darkstar
Dys,

a thought could participate in all the containers you want it to. It isn't limited to ONE container, just as a thought isn't to one parent or one child.

What PB needs, at times, is a "zoom" feature--- where you could "drill in" to a thought and see its details, when a thought represents some process. While mulling this over one day, it occurred to me that this CONTAINER thought is just a user defined view. It contains all the thoughts (and their links) put into it, and it would be quick and convenient to show, since you'd just find everything that belongs to the container.

So--- containers give us all the functionality of a user defined view--- while also giving us a "3rd dimension" of data representation on the plex.

Imagine you are mapping out a process. You may want to map it out at from "orbital" heights. Then you may go back and start mapping in the details underneath that, as you make your plans or you get more details on the process. Being able to ZOOM between "Do Stuff" and a more detailed plex showing what the "Do Stuff" is at the next zoomed level.

Or, think about it this way.

Remember how you wanted to do grids? Well, this lets you do "workbooks" of "spreedsheet" grids.

Consider--- you've dumped all your favorite mp3 tracks into a personal brain. You have each track listed under many parents--- artist, album, genre, favorite tunes. You could set up a view (or container) of all the tracks that is done by an artist. You could set up views/containers of the tracks by album, by genre (or shove the "album" container/view into the appropriate genre), and under "Favorite Tunes" you could have a mix of individual tracks and albums.

That's the beauty of "Containers". If the can contain thoughts, then they are just views that have a VISIBLE ICON you can manipulate in a plex. Zoom into a container, and it is displaying all the thoughts and links in that user defined view. Select any view, and you are just looking at a container you've filled with just what is applicable. You could create views for each client, with it having its own containers with "Client Safe" information, each presentation you want to show them having their own defined subset of thoughts, and all the other related documents to that client included in that view. As a container, you could then make the containing thought (the user view you've made) linked under a "Clients" thought, and linked however you need to whatever else you have in that brain. No need to keep seperate brains for each client--- and no need to duplicate entries across all those client brains for common tools and information. You just swap the view on the plex, or you just select it's "Container" and drill down.

You could have your home info in the same brain you use for work--- and not worry about your home thoughts popping up in search results that are being made in your work view--- and you'd still be able to link between thoughts in your work view and your home view for common things. Just zoom out of work, see the links, and navigate/select.

The point is to empower the user to build his own data sets (mini-brains), and to allow the user to represent those views graphically, so they can "zoom" between them.

It wouldn't be confusing for most users. We already "click" to move pages in a web browser--- zooming into a container thought would be the same thing to the user. You want the details, you zoom in. The plex could even render a small "plex" view of container thoughts (if they don't have an icon defined), so you could see it visually at a glance. Zooming OUT is the only logical question--- since a container could be contained in MANY other containers (views). Where would you go? But PB has a BACK button, so you'd use that to return to prior levels--- OR you'd just link to its contaner, and zoom to it. Same mechanism. We could even have the plex create "virtual containers" for us so we could automatically navigate BACK to where we came from.

PB would provide certain "system" views (or containers). "All (with forgotten)", "All", and the system dynamic views (reports you've generated, etc). We'd be able to make our own.

While it sounds like a lot of work, it wouldn't be very much to tweak what is there to handle it, graphically speaking. The database backend would need a bit of work, but I'm sure the big brains at TheBrain could more than handle it. And we'd get a VERY powerful application out of it.
-Darkstar
Quote
dyslucksia
Why would we need a new container object, when this could all be done by tags?

Imagine tags A and B, each with a "hide" attribute switched on. tagging Thought C with A and B means that C is invisible in the plex but making Tag A or Tag B the active thought would group all its tagged thoughts in the plex. Thought C could become a "container thought" too (an in this way become a parent container thought for two or more containers, for which your model does not provide).

I must play with Report filtering a bit more and see if the same can't be accomplished, although I don't like the way that you can't use Reports for anything else once you are using it to filter the plex. Container Thoughts and Tags with independent "hide" ability would solve that problem.

PB 5.5.2.1 on Windows XP, J-1.6.0_17
Quote
Darkstar
Because tags are flat? When you do a search while displaying all the "tagged" thoughts, all the non-tagged results also show up.

If tags were changed so we could do as you say, then yes, it would get the job done. However, I think that it would be more intuitive to users that they could "put things into" a container, then having to tag something that makes all non-tagged items "forgotten". It would give the users a natural 3rd dimensional feeling and navigation to PB's Plex.
-Darkstar
Quote

Add a Website Forum to your website.

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter Signup        Visit TheBrain Blog   Visit TheBrain Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Follow Us       Like Us on Facebook   Like Us         Circle Us on Google+  Circle Us         Watch Us on Youtube  Watch Us       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software