Linking Locally is Thinking Globally

Thank you!

Thank you to all for helping! My draft of the MindSet standard is the result of my investigation, particularly the descriptions of eight kinds of structural intent.

Would you like to help? I am currently collecting use cases where you would like to transfer groups of thoughts into or out of software tools, and why. Please write to me at ms@ms.lt Andrius Kulikauskas

Work ethic: Working through material gain.
Objective: Think about our own thinking.
Endeavor: Develop an import/export standard for aggregates of thoughts. Import/export capability allows us to undertake ongoing projects to accumulate and organize our thoughts because it enables us to change to a new software tool if ever our old one is discontinued or no longer meets all of our needs.
Motivation: Develop a preliminary standard faithful to existing software and standards.
Hypothesis: Linking Locally is Thinking Globally
Question: What kinds of structural links occur in practice?

Overview of Investigation

I am writing an introduction.
Here are the steps in my investigation:

Collect use cases. We ask users, individual and corporate, for cases where they would like to transfer aggregates of information, and the reasons why.
Collect software tools and standards. We build a list of software tools and standards for organizing aggregates of information.
Interview tool makers and standards developers. We ask tool makers and standards developers how their tools may be used for organizing thoughts.
Describe tools and standards. We view each software tool or standard as structuring thoughts and relationships between thoughts. We describe how each defines the inner structure of a thought (for example, the fields) and the relationships between thoughts (the kinds of global structural constraints).
Identify and describe the various kinds of relationships. We attempt to define each relationship as a link between two thoughts, and we identify the different kinds of structural links that occur in practice, such as: sequence, ordered hierarchy, unordered hierarchy, directed network, nondirected network...
Draw up a mathematical format. We draw up a mathematical format that adequately represents the different kinds of links.
Analyze how our format will help with transfers. We analyze our format as to how it can help with transfers envisaged by users as well as our researchers.
Discuss implementations of our format. We discuss how our format might best be implemented.

Introduction

Andrius Kulikauskas 1999.12.30: I would like us to make as rapid and pragmatic progress as possible to develop an import/export standard for sequences, hierarchies and networks of notes. I propose we look at how existing software products and standards use these structures, and then draw up a simple experimental format that can handle transfers between these products. With the help of interested programmers in Lithuania, we can start creating converters and experimenting with transfers.

The simple experimental format that I envision would consider a system (a data file associated with a software product or standard) as made up of thoughts (nodes) and relationships (links). A thought will have a unique ID and a data field. The data field may have internal structure which we will acknowledge, but not focus on at this time. A relationship will relate two thoughts, possibly by means of a third thought, and will carry the IDs of all of these thoughts. Each relationship will also carry a code to indicate its structural quality, for example:

HU: Hierarchy, unordered. The link is a branch from a tree, and it is not ordered with respect to its sibling branches.
HO: Hierarchy, ordered. The link is a branch from a tree, and it is ordered sequentially with respect to its sibling branches.
HR: Hierarchy, radial. The link is a branch from a tree, and it is ordered cyclically with respect to its sibling branches.
ND: Network, directed. The link is from a network, and is directed.
NN: Network, nondirected. The link is from a network, and is nondirectional.
S: Sequence. The link is from a sequence.

The code helps us think of the link as belonging to a structural subsystem. Typically, the system consists of two or three subsystems working together. For example, the Windows Explorer organizes folders in a hierarchy (unordered? you don't choose the order) and in a network (directed, using shortcuts). The subsystems may be interrelated, but in general, each subsystem poses its own conversion problem.

Therefore, a major question to address is, what are the subsystems that we find in practice? A very much related question is, what are the kinds of links - structural relationships - that we find between thoughts? I ask your help to describe software products, standards and systems - especially your own - that you use for organizing information. I will give two examples: The Brain and MindManager.

As we do this, we should rather quickly get a pretty good picture of the kinds of subsystems that come up. Conversion (from product A to our format to product B) can then be broken down into the following issues:

Converting thoughts from A to thoughts from B, carrying over as much of the inner field structure as possible or desired.
For each subsystem in A, expressing the structure in terms of our format (presumably with no loss of information), and then representing that structure as a subsystem in B (possibly with the loss of some information, and so using an interactive converter/editor to make clear decisions).
Knowing any additional constraints that product A places on the subsystems, especially in integrating them, knowing any incompatibilities with analogous constraints in product B, and addressing them using the interactive converter/editor.

The purpose is to quickly design an experimental format for aggregates of information, so that we can start creating converters and experiment with transfers of information.

Collect Use Cases

We ask users, individual and corporate, for cases where they would like to transfer aggregates of information, and the reasons why.

I am currently collecting use cases where you would like to transfer groups of thoughts into or out of software tools, and why. Please write to me at ms@ms.lt Andrius Kulikauskas

Help us add to our list:

Uses of Structures for Thinking

Collect Software Tools and Standards

We build a list of software tools and standards for organizing aggregates of information.

Help us add to our lists:

Tools for Thinking and Tools for Organizing Thoughts
Formats for Thinking

Interview Tool Makers and Standards Developers

We ask tool makers and standards developers how their tools may be used for organizing thoughts.

Describe Tools and Standards

We view each software tool or standard as structuring thoughts and relationships between thoughts. We describe how each defines the inner structure of a thought (for example, the fields) and the relationships between thoughts (the kinds of global structural constraints).

Here are some questions to keep in mind:

Local questions:

Can there be multiple links from one thought to another?
Can there be a link from a thought to itself?
Does the link establish a direction, distinguishing one thought from another?
Can a thought be associated to the link?
Can any other information be associated to the link (label, file, color, thickness, etc.)?

Global questions:

Are there restrictions on the links so that the thoughts yield a sequence? What is the nature of these restrictions?
Are there restrictions on the links so that the thoughts yield a hierarchy? What is the nature of these restrictions? For example, are the branches ordered sequentially, ordered radially, unordered?

Example: TheBrain

Thought = Name, and a Note that may contain graphics, embedded OLE objects, Windows file shortcuts. Webpage, file.
Child-parent relationships = A link that is directional (say, from parent to child), no multiple links from one thought to another, no link from a thought to itself, no thought associated to the link. No link from
Jump relationships = A link that is nondirectional, no multiple, no self, no thought associated to the link. Mathematically: The set of jump relationships is a subset of the set of all sets {t1, t2}where t1 does not equal t2.

All thoughts are connected to other thoughts by means of one or the other networks.
Jump and child-parent relationships are mutually exclusive, which is to say, the two kinds of relationships have to be aware of each other, because two thoughts can be related by either a jump relationship, or a child-parent relationship, but not both.
Jump, child and parent relationships are displayed separately and in alphabetical order of the label for the related thought.
There is a past-thought list. This can be a time relationship. With order of activation, modification, creation.

So this means that The Brain organizes thoughts into two networks: a directional network and a nondirectional network. The "child-parent" terminology always makes me think of "hierarchy", but it actually defines a network. With The Brain, a child can have many parents, a parent can have many children, and there can be cycles (such as: A is the child of B, B is the child of C, and C is the child of A). The "child-parent" system and the "jump" system are both networks. The difference is that when A and B are linked in the "child-parent" system, then they are distinguished - one is parent, one is child - so that structurally we can say there is a direction. Whereas when A and B are linked in the "jump" system, then they are not distinguished from each other by the jump, so structurally there is no direction.

Identify and Describe the Various Kinds of Relationships

We attempt to define each relationship as a link between two thoughts, and we identify the different kinds of structural links that occur in practice, such as: sequence, ordered hierarchy, unordered hierarchy, directed network, nondirected network...

Draw Up a Mathematical Format

We draw up a mathematical format that adequately represents the different kinds of links.

Analyze How Our Format Will Help with Transfers

We analyze our format as to how it can help with transfers envisaged by users as well as our researchers.

Discuss Implementations of Our Format

We discuss how our format might best be implemented.