See my comments at:
> http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/TheProblemWithHeterogeneousInformation
> http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/ChunkingOverTime
Seth
Seth Johnson wrote:
>
> It is possible to think of mindmaps as relations. One-to-many
> relations of a parent to children.
>
> I think of relations as particular instances (a "use") of a "use
> type" (the parent or "one" side of a one-to-many relation),
> combined with multiple items ("links") of a "link type" (the
> child or "many" side).
>
> So let's say you have a mindmap of a project to organize a
> conference on the "unitary executive theory."
>
> The Use type would be "Project"
> The Link type would be "Task"
> The Use would be "Organize Unitary Executive Conference"
> The Links would be individual tasks.
>
> Or:
>
> The parent or "one" entity is "Projects"
> The child or "many" entity is "Tasks"
>
> The links, the "tasks" here, need to be outlinable (unlike the
> traditional flat table relational data structure). Hence they
> would be mindmappable.
>
> But you can speak generically about relations in terms of use
> types, uses, link types and links. I refer to a specific use
> type combined with a specific link type as a "context."
>
> Since this is a universal data structure, you can put everything
> in it, and since you can outline, you can mindmap as well.
>
> Of course, mindmapping doesn't presuppose that the child nodes
> are just one entity type. This is just a good generic way of
> talking about and understanding how to model things.
>
> If in fact you want the nodes to be multi-use, you call the link
> type something that conveys that, like "Project component," and
> the associated attributes would be used to designate what kind of
> node they are.
>
> The main thing is that you can speak generically about all
> relations with these terms, knowing that all application data can
> fit the abstractions. You just designate the context in terms of
> specific use types combined with specific link types.
>
> Seth
>
> Seth Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Build a universal data store, and if it provides for outlining,
> > you can put a mindmapping front end on it.
> >
> > I would use the mindmapping interface. The key isn't so much
> > what features will communicate as much as possible, as it is the
> > radial arrangement of manipulable nodes around a center.
> >
> > It can replace the table, so long as your architecture provides
> > for outlining. In fact, I endorse the idea of distributed data
> > architectures that essentially distribute metadata about
> > relations among "entities" while leaving attribute values in
> > place at various servers.
> >
> > Seth
> >
> > Mimi Yin wrote:
> > >
> > > The recent posts about mind-mapping make for a good segue to some
> > > research and writing I've done on the topic of how to present gobs of
> > > heterogeneous data in ways that let you immediately grok it, wrap
> > > your head around it, get the big picture, see the forest for the
> > > trees (pick your favorite cliche)...
> > >
> > > Information technology has done a lot in the realm of making it
> > > really easy to create and disseminate lots of data. However, we
> > > haven't made much progress in the realm of improving the way we
> > > consume that data in aggregate. The problem of organizing,
> > > categorizing, and making information more accessible is simply a
> > > symptom of a larger and deeper problem:
> > >
> > > When we look at large piles of data (without looking at each data
> > > point and parsing it in our heads and then flagging it, starring it,
> > > tagging it, filing it or categorizing it in some way) we have no idea
> > > what we're looking at, it's all a big mile of opaque mush to us.
> > >
> > > We can continue down this path of manually getting a grip on our
> > > data, one data point at a time. Or we can explore ways to serve up
> > > data in ways that are more transparent and "more comprehensible in
> > > aggregate".
> > >
> > > Mind-mapping is one of them, but still in its infancy as far as
> > > becoming an universally useful tool (capable of replacing the table
> > > for example.)
> > >
> > > Here are some essays exploring why it is that "data in aggregate" (as
> > > presented in lists and tables and text blobs) is so hard to "get" and
> > > some ideas about how to make it easier to digest.
> > >
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/
> > > ClassificationPaperOutline2
> > >
> > > In particular:
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/
> > > TheProblemWithHeterogeneousInformation
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/PrinciplesOfGrok
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/WhyIsDataSoHardToGrok
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/LookingToThePhysicalWorld
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/TheUseOfColor
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/ChunkingOverTime
> > > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/OneUppingNature
> > >
> > > I realize this is a lot of material, it took me a long time even to
> > > get to this preliminary draft, but any comments and feedback would be
> > > appreciated. Please ping me though if you do add comments. Thx, Mimi
> > >
> > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Reid Ellis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Open source, GPL'ed mindmapping tool for those who want to explore
> > > > this:
> > > >
> > > > http://freemind.sourceforge.net
> > > >
> > > > Versions available for Mac, Windows, Linux (Debian, SuSe, and other
> > > > rpm-based Linux).
> > > >
> > > > Probably not as polished as the official Buzan version (although
> > > > Buzan's http://www.mind-map.com seems to be down). But it might
> > > > give people more ideas.
> > > >
> > > > Reid
--
RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
