How important are redundancies in data representation? If I have set up a hierarchy of thought type device types and functions, should I resist the urge to create parents to represent the same information?
The tug towards re-doing the thought types as parent thoughts is motivated by the visibility of explicit thoughts created as:
over the same thing as nested types (where only the lowest level type in the cascade of types is evident).
At the same time, the use of thought types rather than thought hierarchies allows the result to be visually much clearer. It seems I keep coming back to the issue of monolithic thought types. I'm finding that I want a thought to have multiple thought types (to represent the multiplicity of properties that most items possess). Is this just a mental block of mine? For best clarity, must each property of a thought be indicated by a related thought (comma-thought) to the main thought?
I am considering Shelley's lead that thought types work well as subjective references that highlight particular relevances in a plex. This would suggest a much less 'formal' use of types than I am attempting.
In this case only, I've realized a very pragmatic reason to use parent thoughts rather than thought types: the ability to quickly see all available connectors for a particular feed.
Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting wabbit.