You've zeroed in on the weakest point of the program. Adding notes is mechanically easy but conceptually hard. That's because there are many ways you could choose to represent the same concept.
For instance, suppose "harry gave sally a book" is in your graph. One way you could represent that is "Harry #gave Sally #object a book". Another is "Harry #did (give #object a book) #to Sally". Another is "Harry #did (give #object a book #to Sally)". And actually maybe you'd prefer to represent "a book" as "#a book", so that you can just search for "book".
They're all plausible representations, and all have different implications for how you would run searches. You've got to be consistent in how you represent those relationships, and the program can't help you because I mean it's a database, not a general artificial intelligence.
The strength of the program is that the structure of your index is entirely up to you. But soon that freedom gives way to being bound by the decisions of your former self. And your future self will inevitably understand the space you're representing better than your former self did when it bound you.
Got it. Yeah, this is one of those instances where the paradox of choice can kill you.
Just a thought: if I were interested in adopting a tool like that, my chances of successfully sticking with it would go up 100x if there was a set of "default recommended practices" to follow when saving a new note, to cut down on the decision I would need to make.
Then over time, as I got more familiar with the tool, I could always tweak those default recommendations to fit into my own style
And who better to offer those default practices than the tool's creator? :)
You've zeroed in on the weakest point of the program. Adding notes is mechanically easy but conceptually hard. That's because there are many ways you could choose to represent the same concept.
For instance, suppose "harry gave sally a book" is in your graph. One way you could represent that is "Harry #gave Sally #object a book". Another is "Harry #did (give #object a book) #to Sally". Another is "Harry #did (give #object a book #to Sally)". And actually maybe you'd prefer to represent "a book" as "#a book", so that you can just search for "book".
They're all plausible representations, and all have different implications for how you would run searches. You've got to be consistent in how you represent those relationships, and the program can't help you because I mean it's a database, not a general artificial intelligence.
The strength of the program is that the structure of your index is entirely up to you. But soon that freedom gives way to being bound by the decisions of your former self. And your future self will inevitably understand the space you're representing better than your former self did when it bound you.