, I've been attempting to adapt your approach to "Prefer positive note titles to promote systematic theory" (notes.andymatuschak.org/About_these_no), but I'm not sure if I'm finding it to be a good fit for systems thinking, when there are many forces.
Have you dealt with this?
Conversation
As a concrete example, this piece I just published describes many factors. It's unclear how I could summarize it as a whole with a note title of this form. And if I were to summarize each factor as a note title, the titles would likely be very repetitive.
1
Yes, this has been an issue. Tradeoffs everywhere, etc. At least for the moment, I've taken the repetitive-title approach; e.g. notes.andymatuschak.org/z42J1vxsMjhkdb.
I'm broadly pretty skeptical of block-oriented editing environments, but this is a place where they might do better.
1
1
Interesting to note, though, that the constituent notes linked there are referenced in different places and do find themselves growing in different directions. So while they may start highly-clustered, they often diverge and take on their own identity.
Replying to
My intuition, is that there are multiple forms of "parameterization" for the "note title API". But there is also a danger of over complexifying or overstructuring.
1
Yes, very similar to software API design… SRP vs. cohesion; YAGNI vs. Big Design Up Front; etc