Ervinn Show full post »
rhodes
In that case, there would have to be some rule to decide what is displayed in Instant Search. If both aliases, this could result in unnecessary duplication, particularly if one is able to create three or more aliases per thought. If only one alias is displayed, which type (e.g., color) will be used? If one type is chosen over another, then this makes the aliases/spouses unequal in importance. All these matters need to be considered.
Alan Rhodes
Quote
Ervinn

Quote:
My understanding from Ervinn's description is that spouse and alias thoughts are the same thing. Of course, I could be misunderstanding, hopefully Ervinn will clarify.

I am happy to explain.
 
Alies does not have separate Note and attachments. 
 

Initially, I was thinking about having the option to give an alias name to a Thought. The alias could have different type and tags from the original one. The alias would have the same Notes and attachments. Also the alias would have the same parents and children.

 

Later, I was thinking to let the alias have different parents and children, so it would be able to participate in different hierarchical structures. The easy way to do that is to let the alias be a normal Thought, and somehow link it to the source Thought. I called this link the spouse relationship.

 

I don't know which one would be easier to implement.

I think the important thing is to be able the alias Thought having different parents and children. If an alias can have that, than the only different between alias and spouse are, that alias Thoughts point to the same data. And in spouse Thought each thought have separate data.

 

  



Quote
rhodes

Thanks Ervinn for explaining.

This is exactly how I do it now for my alias thoughts. They are always differently colored (typed) from the thought to which they point, in which all data is stored in Note and attachments. There is no need for the alias to have its own set of data, which might result in unnecessary duplication.

Alias thoughts are really part of one's own design for a Brain and do not need to be enforced by PB, which would limit their flexibility. They are just ordinary thoughts with a different type assigned to them, hence they can have parents and children.

In my system, aliases hold synonyms only, e.g., if I had a gardening database and wanted to store the names of plants, I'd name the main thought with the plant's latin name and create an alias to it with its common name, so I can search for either. The only other thoughts that link to my alias thoughts are my keyword thoughts (another type), for purposes of disambiguation. The keyword-alias relationship is always parent-child.

However, your setup might be a bit different. Suppose you wanted to store accounting information about your computer separately from hardware information. In that case one solution would be to create a parent thought named MyComputer plus two child thoughts, MyComputer, accounting and MyComputer,hardware. You could regard these child thoughts as spouses of each other, though they are really siblings. The parent thought MyComputer might store little or nothing in Notes or attachments; its child thoughts could compartmentalize the specialized information, and also link to Accounting and Hardware respectively.

Maybe what we both need is for Normal view to display an extra layer of child thoughts (without having to use Expand All) to make it easier to display spouse thoughts along with grandchildren. This after all is how virtual folders operates. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hide alias/spouse thoughts inside the main thoughts as can be done (I think) with virtual folders? That would enable an extra generation of child thoughts to be displayed.

Alan Rhodes
Quote
zenrain
@rhodes, the request for alias thoughts includes having the same notes and attachments. Updating notes on one would update the notes on any alias thoughts. The draw of this is allowing the same thought to have different types or tags, and be in a different parent child relationship, but only require upkeeping one.

Your usage is keywords for thoughts, which is different, and aimed at allowing you to find thought chains using different searches. It's a good system, but I don't think it's what Ervinn (or myself) is envisioning.

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

Quote:
The draw of this is allowing the same thought to have different types or tags, and be in a different parent child relationship, but only require upkeeping on(c)e.

I get your point, though am not sure whether this would be a draw or a drawback. The downside to this would appear to be that whichever alias/spouse happens to be active, one would have no idea of the total number of parents, children or jumps linked to it, unless one switches between the aliases to get the big picture. One might attempt to link a thought to one alias, not realizing it was already linked to the other. If this were not a problem, then there could be some advantage in splitting a thought into two aliases.

Maybe, when linking is better developed, if we could assign tags to links that determine whether the links are visible or not, that might make all this possible.

Alan Rhodes
Quote
Ervinn

Quote:
In that case one solution would be to create a parent thought named MyComputer plus two child thoughts, MyComputer, accounting and MyComputer,hardware. You could regard these child thoughts as spouses of each other, though they are really siblings.

Yes, this is a solution. I am doing something like this already. However a spouse relationship would be nicer, to my opinion.

 

Quote:
I get your point, though am not sure whether this would be a draw or a drawback. The downside to this would appear to be that whichever alias/spouse happens to be active, one would have no idea of the total number of parents, children or jumps linked to it, unless one switches between the aliases to get the big picture. 

That was one of the main points of the spouse relationship, not having to see the spouse’s parents and children that may clatter your view. At the same time your spouse’s information is close by a click away. The closeness is important. Because all the aliases/spouses are visible together, I think alias Thought would give you the big picture more than currently possible.

 

 

Quote:
  This after all is how virtual folders operates. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hide alias/spouse thoughts inside the main thoughts as can be done (I think) with virtual folders?

This is interesting. Actually, alias Thought would do exactly that, hide the aliases (in your solution: the children) from view, but at the same time make it visible them, on the “parent” Thought, ready to be activated if you need them.

 

Quote
rhodes

Now that I understand your concept of spouse relationships more clearly, I think they would work for those users like yourself who might have so many parents and/or children attached to one thought that it becomes desirable to break it up into two or more spouses, each hiding the non-relevant links from the other(s).

I would do this by making them all jump-linked to each other, rather than child thoughts of a central parent. In this way, for example, with A as the active spouse, one can see that it has spouses B and C, though their links are hidden until you click Expand All. Then you see all links for all spouses (or is that allspice?), which is better than having to activate each in turn.

Maybe create a link type named spouse, give it another color and make it slightly thicker so it stands out, so there is no need to assign special types to the spouse thoughts themselves, only to the links connecting them.

I think this would satisfy what you are trying to achieve. A, B and C are at an equal level in the hierarchy. They could share the same type and the same name, maybe with a number suffix, e.g., rename them A[1], A[2], A[3]. Or they might all be named A and you could create 3 or more types, Alias1, Alias2, Alias3..., each with a distinguishing icon or color. This enables you to distinguish between them in Instant Search results and make the correct choice.

I don't know that I can add much more to your concept unless the developers decide to implement it. Good luck with your idea.

Alan Rhodes
Quote
Ervinn

@rhodes, thanks for your feedbacks, I appreciate them.

 

It depends how easy to implement alias/spouse Thought, to see if that is worth it. There are many other features out there waiting to be implemented.

 

In the mean time, alias Thought, as you described, can be represented either by child or jump Thought. Both have advantages and disadvantages. It requires more discipline to create them, than having the spouse relationships feature, but they work too.
 

Too bad, PB is not open source. Instead of talking about it, we could actually developed the feature.




Quote

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter        Visit TheBrain Blog   Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Twitter       Like Us on Facebook   Facebook         Watch Us on Youtube  YouTube       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software