• Posts 16
  • Member Since
  • Last Active
Email
All Posts Topics Started
How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?
Another update and another question [smile]

I succeeded in mapping the first level of relationships in the real world example - that's great.

Now I'm stuck with adding another "set" of relationships.

I think there's no other way than to show the real thing:

Screenshot 2017-11-10 18.56.34.png The "relationship of interest" is to see that "Web Apps" is a "Customer Product Technology Domain" of "Martin".    This is successfully represented using the join node technique, you can see that join node.

The problem is that actually, Martin only knows about (let's say) Javascript Web Clients.   This is a subset of Web Apps.

But I can't just move the link from the join node down to Javascript, because Javascript is also used for "Web Servers".   Martin's Customer Product Technology Domain the Javascript kind of Web Client kind of Web App.

How do I represent that?  
How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?
Quick update: this method completely solved the Companies and Building Tools problem I set above.

I'm going back to my original real-life problem to try it there, fingers crossed [smile]
How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?

Thanks - I suspect that this is what zenrain tried to tell me, but I didnt properly appreciate the role of the "join" thought.

Why does the "join" thought behave "asymetrically".

IE when I follow your instructions, and click on "Company A", then the join thought shows up as "Ladders".

But when I click on "Ladders", it shows up as "Ladders, Company A".   I don't have a handle on what this different behaviour represents.    What is the "semantic difference" between "Company A" and "Ladders" in this thought process, such that one has a special relationship to the join thought and the other does not?

^^^  Wrong.

I think I made a mistake somewhere - now that I have double checked, I get "symmetrical" behaviour.

^^ Update: I had my mouse over the join node, which causes it to display the full title [smile]

So this is looking promising: I just need to get my head around how it scales [smile]

Thanks again.

How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?


Thanks very much for persisting with this analysis - I really appreciate it.

I think the idea of using a "Link Type" for the previous example is very neat.  

I can see that in some cases it will make sense, and it is a useful "mental model" to have available.

Unfortunately, in reality I think that the entities involved do need to be thoughts.

What I've come to realise is that the analogy is not holding up largely because Goats Milk and Cows Milk are actually different things.     So this mismatch in the analogy gets in the way.

But I think an analogy is possibly still the best way to go.

So how about this closer analogy.   We are analysing the construction industry, because we are in the construction tool hire business.

Here are the thoughts we want to represent:


There are different "kinds of things" that construction companies can build:  Roads, Bridges, Buildings.  
 
There are different tools/equipment that companies may use.   Cranes, Ladders, Diggers. 

Some of these can be used for some things you build, but not others.

Ladders are use for everything.

Cranes are used in Buildings and Bridges.

Diggers are used for Roads and Buildings.

Company A builds Buildings and Bridges.

Company B builds Roads

So far so good:


Screenshot 2017-11-04 15.11.00.png 
But now:


Company A uses Ladders for Buildings.

Company A uses Cranes for Bridges.   As it happens, they don't build the kind of Buildings that need Cranes.

Company B uses Diggers for Roads.   But they never chose to use Ladders.


How do I say "Company A is related to Ladders _for_ or _through_ Buildings"?






How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?
metta wrote: I don't know if this would work for your purposes, but you could use named links (instead of thoughts) for all the "Farming Activities".
  • If farmers engage in only one type of farming activity, this would mean using the named link "Hair" to connect Farmer A to Goats.
  • If farmers engage in multiple types of farming activities, you could adjust the link types accordingly: "Hair & Milk", "Hair & Meat & Milk", etc.


Something like this could be done for the specific "example problem" that I gave, but it doesn't scale.

As soon as you have more than a few things, you can see that you would have exponentially more links.

But more fundamentally, the problem is that Hair and Milk are thoughts.   They have relationships to other thoughts.

What I need to be able to say is that FarmerA is linked to Milk _because of_ Cows.   Milk and Cows are both thoughts in their own right.

Maybe it would help to get real.

FWIW, In real life, the problem I am currently tackling is mapping Software Development companies, and the technologies they use.

So there are languages like Python and Javascript, C, C++.

And there are technologies like Backend Servers and FrontEnd Web Apps, Mobile Apps, Desktop Apps.

So a Company might do Desktop Apps and Embedded Apps.   They use C++ _because of_ their work in Embdded.     They use Python _because of_ their work in Desktop.

They don't use C++ in their Desktop Apps.  

But I can't find a way to connect these thoughts in such a way that there is a difference between the link from the Company to C++ and from the Company to Python.

TheBrain doesn't seem to be able to "naturally and scalably" capture these two different relationships.

I can't do as zenrain suggested either, because that doesn't scale.  It would mean putting every technology _under_ every language: IE a node for every combination.




How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?
I'm definitely not "getting it" - I guess I'm missing something simple.

Here is my "setup":

Screenshot 2017-11-02 13.21.31.png 
We can see that we have

  • Cows and Goats under Animals
  • Cows and Goats under Milk Production
  • Cows and Goats under Meat Production
  • Goats under Hair Production
What do I do to get Farmer A connected up to Hair Production, Goats ?
How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?
Thanks to both of you for opening the door to comma tricks.

I'm experimenting with this now.
See that there is a note on a link (#1285)

Yeah - it'd be good to have.  It seems that it's more of a bug than a feature: the "show notes and event indicators" option should apply to links as well.

That being said, I've realised that because I didn't understand the difference between editing a link and a link type, I didn't understand @zenrain's suggestion properly.

When you put the "attachment icon" into the link type label, it's actually quite a workable workaround!

(I had previously mistakenly put it in the link label)

See that there is a note on a link (#1285)
Hah - I wondered what that second edit box did.

And you are right - in that second one you can leave the label blank, and the required effect is achieved (unlike in the case of the individual label, which you can't leave blank and get "nothing")

The only sad side effect of this is that the link type itself then loses it's name:

Screenshot 2017-10-28 12.00.40.png 
See that there is a note on a link (#1285)
The problem is that if you don't put text in the link label, then you get the name of the link type showing up as the label.

Or at least, that's what happens to me.

Is there a way to avoid that?   Then you could have just different colour for links with attachments. 

And it still seems like you have to adjust this every time you make a link of this type?   Can you make links of a certain type "always" appear a certain way?

How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?
I'm not clear how you got the second and third pictures from the same Brain.

In the second picture, Goats have Hair, Meat, and Milk under them.   That's good.

In the third picture, suddenly it appears that Goats have "Goats, Milk" under them.    

I guess it's clear that it would not be workable to have "Milk" and "Goats, Milk" both under Goats.   

But it's not clear how you achieved having "Milk" appear sometimes under "Goats" and "Goats, Milk" appear other times?


See that there is a note on a link (#1285)
Thanks, that idea solves the immediate problem I bumped into (before then I just used a '-').   It's a shame you have to do it every time you create such a link, but at least it works.
How do you show that a thought links to another only "because of" an intermediate?

Here is an example of the information I have in my head, that I need to capture:

 - Cows can be used in Milk Production
 - Goats can be used in Milk Production
 - Cows can be used in Meat Production
 - Goats can be used in Hair Production
 - Farmer A is involved in Milk Production, using Cows.
 - Farmer A is involved in Hair Production, using Goats

The problem is that if you make:

 - a Cow thought that links to Milk Production, and to Meat Production
 - a Goat thought that links Milk Production, and to Hair Production
 - a Farmer A thought that links to
     - Milk Production
     - Hair Production
     - Cows
     - Goats

then it looks like Farmer A is connected to Milk production via Goats. 

Farmer A ended up appearing connected to Milk Production via Goats just because Goats can be used for that.

But Farmer A is only connected to Milk Production via Cows.

How do you represent this correctly?    How do you enable this Brain to answer the question "how many farmers with Goats are involved in Milk Production with those Goats?"


(note: my actual challenge relates to representing SW development companies, products, technologies, languages used etc to produce them, but the farm analogy is simpler!  However, if it helps, how do you represent that a company that builds back end Web Servers and front end Web Apps, and uses Javascript for front end Web Apps, is not a user of Javascript for back end?   Or to put it even more pertinently, how do you count all companies that make Javascript back end web servers, and not end up counting this company?)

See that there is a note on a link (#1285)
This sounds like it could work, except can you persuade TB not to display the "ugly" link-type label over the link?   

Right now, if I give a link a "type" it gets a prominent text label saying that it is of this type, which is far too distracting...
See that there is a note on a link (#1285)

How can I make it so that I can tell that there is a note on a link?

(I have a preferences setting that says to "show notes and event indicators", but this doesn't seem to be doing that for notes on link)

count post selected

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