On Oct 12, 7:55 pm, Saverio <saverio.mavig...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let's think about: "A (task) depends on C (task/project/wahtever)" > > > A contains: > > |Author:| pmario | > > |Description:| this is a task | > > |Dependencies:| C, D | > > > lorem ipsum 100 times > > > What I would do: > > *Tag A waiting > > *Tag every finished task with: done > > *A tagged: C > > *tag mission critical tasks with "critical" > > > Q4: "List all tiddlers that have Dependencies, and ar tagged waiting?" > > A4: I am sure, that fET or a new macro can solve this. May be some > > other macros can solve it allready too. > > > Q5: "Which tasks are waiting" > > A5: <<list filter [tag[waiting]]>> > > > Q6: "display waiting tasks in project B" > > A6: <<list filter "[tag[B AND waiting]]">> klick the link and have a > > look at the text, why it is waiting > > > Q7: "Which tasks are critical and waiting" > > Q8: <<list filter "[tag[critical AND waiting]]">> > > This is exactly the way I have implemented my own gtd paradigm within > TW. However, in addition to the plugins you mention, this approach > requires building a set of *processes* that essentially encode the > relationship "depends on". For example, when I click task A as being > done, I have to go and search all other tasks tagged with [task A] and > remove the [waiting] tag from them....unless they themselves are > dependent on another task that is not yet completed. If a task can > depend on more than one other task or project at a time, than this can > get very complicated very quickly. This is a lot of overhead to > simply cross off a task from your todo list, especially if you are not > a programmer. That's right. But from a programmers point of view a tag dependsOn(C) doesn't solve this problem either. What you want here, is a mechanism that tells "the core": *if tiddler C is tagged done **remove all tags waiting from tiddlers tagged dependsOn(C) *If a tiddler tagged dependsOn(xx) is tagged done **check tiddler xx if it is tagged done, ask the user, what to do, if not
The above is a very user (use case) specific desire and needs, specialiced macros, that are prepared to handle it. > Of course, you can always download a ready made TW application with > all of these extra functions built-in, and give up on the ability to > customize, ... I don't think so. You only need more time, to understand, how to customize it. It's true, that this can be very tricky, and sometimes very frustrating. > .. but then you give up as well a large part of the appeal of > vanilla TW. .. That's right. The first thing I check if I find an interesting plugin is: Is there a possibility to solve it with core functions. And since the TW core is allready big (my opinion) it is very hard to convince the devs to include something new, if it could also be done with plugins. > .. Even then, an application for one use case is not > generalizable to other use cases - a completely different application > must be built. In the GTD case it seems like a new application. But it isn't. It is a vanilla tw with plugins. Many of them but still only plugins. > This goes against TW's other major attractive feature, > the ability to re-using concepts and structures over and over again > for different use cases. see above. only plugins. > In my opinion, simple tags, which imply an isA relationship, go a > *long* way, but not as far as possible with semantic tags. It would > be nice for the next version of TW to support a more powerful method > to relate tiddlers to each other. I'm sorry I still don't know, what "semantic tags" means for you. regards Mario -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to tiddlyw...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
