Information Componentization, Elemental Tiddlers, Aggregation Tiddlers, and Elemental Tiddler Links

[Charlie Veniot]

Information Componentization, Elemental Tiddlers, Aggregation Tiddlers, and Elemental Tiddler Links ???

Although I'm unsure of my vocabulary, I find it good enough for now (paralysis by analysis happens way too easily for me)...

I'm a fan of Information Componentization (a core process to what I call "Intertwingularity Mapping".)  "What Do We Mean by Componentization (for Knowledge)?" explains what I think oh-so-well.

I firmly believe that Tiddlers really ought to be light (small, in the sense that editing one should not involve vertical scrolling to see everything), and I like to think of "information" tiddlers as being of these types (from these thoughts juggling around in this old sponge o' mine):

• Fragment Tiddlers
• not particularly, or at all, useful on its own; existing only for the purpose of transclusion so that something common among many tiddlers can be entered/updated once and transcluded wherever needed, guaranteeing consistent representation of "whatever it is" across the board
• Elemental Tiddlers
• a very small tiddler that is focused on a small topic and stands independently on its own, i.e. it is topically complete; it can still, though, transclude other tiddlers that enhance the topic
• Aggregation Tiddlers
• meant to cover very large/broad topics, organizing a lot of content that comes from the transclusion of many source tiddlers, including Fragment and Elemental and other Aggregate Tiddlers
• sure, these tiddlers may also directly contain a little bit of content when it doesn't make much sense to have dedicated tiddlers just for that content

As per screenshots below, I'm conceptually playing around with all these thoughts above, testing out ways to pile a lot of content in an Aggregation Tiddler while being mindful of designing to minimize "cognitive overload", making heavy use of of the DetailsWidget plugin and HTML tables.

One of the things my related transclusion template does: include "transclusion souce tiddler links"  (with this cute little guy, fattened up here just to make him easier to see:  🐟), to make it quick and easy to access a transcluded tiddler for editing.

If you want to play around with (or simply look at) any of this, check out my Charlie's ADHD Slice'n Dice TiddlyWiki instance.

Cheers !

I also tweaked this "Aggregation Tiddler" to take advantage of the "tAsDetailsClosed" transclusion template (same as the one above, but details not open by default)

And I setup the related "New Journal" actions for this specific journal to use this tiddler as a template:

[TW Tones]

Thanks for Sharing your thoughts,

Cognitive overload is something we can all suffer from. Some aspects of Tiddlywiki cause this and this is where I believe development would do well to focus on. 

Your focus will no doubt contribute to this thinking. 

There are other complex fields such as engineering and even coding that also offer insight such as modularisation, black-boxes and objects. We can use what ever suits us to handle tiddlywiki.

What some people think is that building such components limit's creativity, they are I believe wrong, because if you can quickly define the blocks you need it is easier to build larger things, things that better represent what we observe.

You can always build a new component, relationship or module as needed if your creativity leads that way. Blocks can be anything you define as one, Done well they reduce cognitive load.

Regards

Tones 

[Charlie Veniot]

G'day Tones,

Dang, that was well put.

I usually find it really challenging to put into words the thoughts swirling around in this sponge o' mine.  Whenever I find something written (by some really skillful folk), I can't help but get excited with a happy "That's it!  That's what I was thinking!" internal jig going on. 

For the last few years, all of these swirling thoughts have been more focused, more coherent after seeing these bits from the Intertwingularity Wikipedia article:

• Ted Nelson wrote: "EVERYTHING IS DEEPLY INTERTWINGLED. In an important sense there are no "subjects" at all; there is only all knowledge, since the cross-connections among the myriad topics of this world simply cannot be divided up neatly."

• He added the following comment: "Hierarchical and sequential structures, especially popular since Gutenberg, are usually forced and artificial. Intertwingularity is not generally acknowledged—people keep pretending they can make things hierarchical, categorizable and sequential when they can't."

From there, I've got a ridiculously intertwingled mess of notions, in particular:

• everything is indeed intertwingled
  • Squirrel!  Well, Puffins!  A side-tracked blog entry if you like puffins.

• there are always a myriad of cross-connected topics and sub-topics and super-topics, and, although not easy, there is a way of componentizing every little thing into fragmental and elemental information components (Tiddlers in TiddlyWiki, Pages in other Wikis) that can be combined into all/any aggregations (complex topic, sub-topic, and super-topic)
  • tell me something is impossible, and I will hyperfocus on that to either prove that it is indeed impossible, or actually do the impossible thing; stubborn me ...

• Each topic/sub-topic/super-topic can certainly be presented in various alternative aggregations, each aggregation being a "living/dynamic" hierarchical/sequential/linear perspective of the topic/sub-topic/super-topic
  • living/dynamic in the sense that everything is ever-evolving: every information component, every aggregation, interconnections..

• Every topic/sub-topic/super-topic, and every aggregation can definitely be categorized in however many useful (i.e. of information value) ways

• All of the information components (fragmental and elemental), all of the aggregations (every topic/sub-topic/super-topic), all of the categories, all of the connections between each one of those things ... together they are the intertwingularity within whatever unlimited or narrow scope that matters

Hmm.  That sniffs of an Intertwingularity Mapping "vision."

Not sure if well put.  I'll have to re-read again later to decide (I'm a "tweaker" by nature, always adjusting to get "it" juuuuust right. I find all things good enough until, they aren't.)

Definitely wordy.  Feels good, though.

[TW Tones]

Charlie,

Some responses inline

Dang, that was well put.

Thanks, but its just a result of career in information tech and information management for real people.

 

I usually find it really challenging to put into words the thoughts swirling around in this sponge o' mine.  Whenever I find something written (by some really skillful folk), I can't help but get excited with a happy "That's it!  That's what I was thinking!" internal jig going on. 

This happens for most of us to different degrees, you may notice I tend to challenge exceptionalism, and replace it with spectrum's. Although I appreciate the uniqueness and individuality of us all.

 

For the last few years, all of these swirling thoughts have been more focused, more coherent after seeing these bits from the Intertwingularity Wikipedia article:

Interesting 

• Ted Nelson wrote: "EVERYTHING IS DEEPLY INTERTWINGLED. In an important sense there are no "subjects" at all; there is only all knowledge, since the cross-connections among the myriad topics of this world simply cannot be divided up neatly."

• He added the following comment: "Hierarchical and sequential structures, especially popular since Gutenberg, are usually forced and artificial. Intertwingularity is not generally acknowledged—people keep pretending they can make things hierarchical, categorizable and sequential when they can't."

I understand the idea here, and perhaps this is the case for many but my "Hierarchical and sequential structures" are rarely forced and artificial. I don't pretend they are hierarchical, I deploy a hierarchy if there is one to be found, but I use a tool that allows me to capture the free links and the hierarchical.  Yes we must not be tied up by the representations we use, but rather than avoid one, I implement as many different structures I can. A sequence may be as simple as the order I enter them, or a category that indicates what stimulated the generation of content.

• there are always a myriad of cross-connected topics and sub-topics and super-topics, and, although not easy, there is a way of componentizing every little thing into fragmental and elemental information components (Tiddlers in TiddlyWiki, Pages in other Wikis) that can be combined into all/any aggregations (complex topic, sub-topic, and super-topic)
  • tell me something is impossible, and I will hyperfocus on that to either prove that it is indeed impossible, or actually do the impossible thing; stubborn me ...

You do sound a lot like me with this. 

 

• Each topic/sub-topic/super-topic can certainly be presented in various alternative aggregations, each aggregation being a "living/dynamic" hierarchical/sequential/linear perspective of the topic/sub-topic/super-topic
  • living/dynamic in the sense that everything is ever-evolving: every information component, every aggregation, interconnections..

Yes, Yes Yes and look at philosophy's, science and belief's the world over and you will see this reoccurring in anyone who is just a little thoughtful.

 

Not sure if well put.  I'll have to re-read again later to decide (I'm a "tweaker" by nature, always adjusting to get "it" juuuuust right. I find all things good enough until, they aren't.)

Perhaps Tweeking is a key term for TiddlyWiki users to use, even an alternative name should we want one. 

To back up some of my claims, I am interested in building a knowledge model where we use a multitude of hierarchies, designed to capture a range of organisational methods, spawning another when needed. Perhaps even to the extreme that no tiddler has a value of an attribute without it being a relationship to another structure. So to assign a color, color point to it in the color wheel, want a street address?, point to it on a map, want a family relationship? point to a place in a family tree.

Add the ability to have fuzzy and gradually accumulated hierarchies, tolerant of missing information and you are on the way to information Nirvana.

Eg a simple list with items on the left and right is the structure needed to establish a zero, 1 or many to many relationship between two sets. 

 

Regards

Tones

[Charlie Veniot]

Tones, you sweet sweet guru of intertwingled thinking !

Just so you know, since reading your reply, I've been in an instantaneous (nothing gradual about it) and blissfully warm-fuzzy Nirvana of:

All o' them dots and "i's" and crosses and "t's" swirling around in me wee sponge are slowly kind of coming together.

Me thinks.

At the very least, I'm inching towards some kind of faint glimmer.

I should probably put on some sunglasses.

And not stare directly into the light ...

Re-reading your reply, my mind goes to "structure" of information and a frustration of mine.  (I have a thought, so I just surrender to the thing and embrace it.  Hold onto your ears folk, 'cause here I go !)

Before starting any kind of writing project, most folk (I think: by human nature) will want to plan some sort of information structure to get started.  Most likely, that structure will be determined by (or constrained / dictated by) the choice of tool used for the writing (and maybe a little too much "lock in" via narrow-focused planning, thus missing out on opportunities).

That kind of thing drives me a little bit bananas.

With the wrong kind of tool and/or the wrong kind of structure, you might find yourself at some point locked into that structure (i.e. really painful to change it) when elucidation, through discovery of new information or requirements or opportunities, points to the need for different or additional structure(s).

For example:

A few years ago, my teammates (programmer/analysts) were each asked to put together each a OneNote document, in a shared network folder, to describe his/her job.  (I was excused from that because I had already been describing, for the previous 14-ish years everything about my job in a wiki.)

One of the teammates suggested that it might make more sense to have a OneNote document per application instead.  (There was a "many-many" relationship between each programmer/analyst and each supported application. )   The teammate believed it made more sense to have a OneNote document per application so that application-specific knowledge for each application would be together, instead of knowledge for one application split into pieces among job-related OneNote documents.

Of course, I couldn't help thinking: why are you locking up information into a fixed structure?

• You are setting yourselves up to make it difficult-to-get "alternative information views"  because of the fixed storage structure of the information.
• Or, worse: you are setting yourselves up for duplication of information across multiple structures.  A maintenance nightmare!
• i.e.
• a bunch of OneNote documents in some folder, each containing job-specific information
• and a bunch of OneNote documents in some folder, each containing application-specific information already existing in the job-specific OneNote documents

Arg!  A wiki would solve that!  Create narrow-focused "Elemental" Pages/Tiddlers (all "first-class citizens"), and transclude them into whatever "structures"  (i.e. "Aggregation" Pages/Tiddlers via the magic of transclusion) to get whatever kind of information you need when you need it !  That fell upon dead ears.  I have no idea if they eventually got any OneNote documents together at all, let along figure out first how to structure them.

All of my wordiness to say... That's the beauty of wikis (my heart belonging to TiddlyWiki) :  they allow for agile and organic/evolutionary figuring out of structure(s) and adapting structure(s) (as information is discovered, as content gets created and as structural needs reveal themselves.) 

Intertwingularity Mapping is all about squashing writer's block.  Don't get into paralysis by analysis of big requirements up front (i.e. "detailed" planning, and "structures" of any kind, especially documents and folders!)  Start writing!  Start with a list!  Just like the seeds for some plants, the plants and the garden will let you know what they need in time.

Total aside, I am reminded of a philosophy, one of so many, I have:  Life has a way of confounding expectations.  (And plans.  Because we don't know what we don't know.  Until we know, at which point it is some nice to have the luxury of quickly and easily adjusting, and re-adjusting, at any time.)

To me, there is nothing better than a wiki for the business of writing/organizing anything.  (Well, although I'm pretty stubborn about it, I am always open to any new thing that comes along and could change my mind ... )

Cheers, and thanks again, Tones !

[TW Tones]

Charlie

Thanks for your words too.

You say

With the wrong kind of tool and/or the wrong kind of structure, you might find yourself at some point locked into that structure (i.e. really painful to change it) when elucidation, through discovery of new information or requirements or opportunities, points to the need for different or additional structure(s).

And I agree as your post concludes their is "little pain in change, in tiddlywiki".

In someways "the rules we should follow, are those that subsequently help us make and break all the rules" :)

 

Also you mention the philosophy that;

"Life has a way of confounding expectations."

As an optimist this is no challenge to my well begin, I find when the going gets tough, innovation is at hand, because you want to undermine the barriers in front of you.

Also "if you push hard enough, turbulence forms that resists your forward motion, but by then you are moving quite fast" :)

Regards

Tony