5 ms·

> Hierarchical notetakers/outliners are becoming a new data structure for end users, specialized in knowledge management. Outliners are used in this area for d

> Hierarchical notetakers/outliners are becoming a new data structure for end users, specialized in knowledge management. Outliners are used in this area for decades. What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features. > When tools like Obsidian or Logseq start allowing the user to use query results as first-class data, I predict that we will see a revolution in end-user process automation. So, SQL?

quaunaut 4y ago
> Outliners are used in this area for decades. What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features. To say that what we have now is nothing but a new hype cycle while the Zettelkasten method was only widely exposed within the last couple of decades, and was not utilized in the design of past Outliners, shows you don't really understand what's actually changed.
- slightwinder 4y ago
  Zettelkasten is nothing new and just hype. Only shows that you just don't know this space, and it's history. Obviously there is improvement, but it's not in methods or data-structures, it's with technology and implementations. We are now at the point where we can move fast with implementations and glue much more features together.
  - quaunaut 4y ago
    Then please, illuminate me. Because the implications of Luhmann's use of the Zettelkasten weren't widely available till the last decade, and weren't available in software until the same period. So what exactly don't I know? Genuinely.
    - slightwinder 4y ago
      Luhmann methods are known since the 80s, at least in europe. And I think I saw the first digital implementation around 2006 or 2008. Looking it up, the first(?) Digital Zettelkasten after Luhmann method was in 2004 already at version 2.5, so it's likely quite older. But dates are not important here. Luhmanns method is simply not that special, nor unique. Many scientists and artist used similar methods and tools. He is mostly just replicating what was common at the time, but with some twist. And in the 80s or 90s is would be really awesome, probably even somewhat groundbreaking. But today? It's just another graph-system which you find in wikis or hypertext for decades now. And most people are not even using the benefits of his number-system, just calling everything zettelkasten which is just a wiki otherwise, leaving even less of his originality. Though, in digital space it make less sense anyway, so not a big lose. But for whatever reason, there now this hype from people who seem to have know knowledge about those space or it's history, or even really understand the terms, thinking Luhmanns method is called Zettelkasten...
TuringTest 4y ago
> Outliners are used in this area for decades. What outliners do you know which allow end-users to feed their data into formulas for processing it without using general-purpose programming languages? I'm genuinely interested, as I've been exploring these tools for years and I haven't found any that meets my requirements. > So, SQL How many end-users without any programming experience are able to create moderately complex SQL queries? With a data-centric outliner tool, they'll be able to decompose those into several simple graphical queries.
- slightwinder 4y ago
  > What outliners do you know which allow end-users to feed their data into formulas for processing it without using general-purpose programming languages? Bit of a pointless constraint, the talk is about outliners, not no-code-datamangment. Which tool today does this even offer on a useful level? But you can look at leo editor (https://leoeditor.com https://leoeditor.com), which is active for 20+ years, fully scriptable and extendable. Though, it's a hot piece of garbage for laymen. It's offers a bunch of features and plugins even for non-coders, but I'm not sure it would satisfy you for this area, if you can't code. Obsidian is probably better than, even if it has more limitations at the moment. But I'm not sure if there ever is a tool which will satisfy everyone with just a no-code-approach.
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    > Bit of a pointless constraint, the talk is about outliners, not no-code-datamangment. The point I'm making is that those are both aspects of the same substrate, and modern knowledge tools are exploring the gap between those two - as well as expanding them in new directions. Yes, certainly Leo is one of the closest tools on which to build a system like that, although it still relies too much on Python programming (and its usability leaves a lot to be desired, even if the concepts are solid). I expect that the next popular tool in that space will grow either from online notebooks like Jupyter or from desktop linked note-takers like logseq. (BTW I can code, but I don't want to; remembering the syntax details of the needed APIs does not come natural to me, so it's usually not worth the effort). I still believe that it is possible to grow a programming tool similar to Excel but with structured hierarchical content, without requiring coding more complex than spreadsheet formulas and filters.
ryanjamurphy 4y ago
> What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... The only thing the user has to do is work with that single page of information. It's more than hype for me.
- slightwinder 4y ago
  > You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" The concepts are old and have a new hype. The apps are new. But generally, it doesn't matter much for the user whether you have some old-school desktop-app with gtk or Qt, or a "modern" electron app, or some webapp on your own server or some service in the cloud. At the end it's all the same ideas and concepts in different colors and flavors. > If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? That entirely depends on who is "we". We which are all users? Or we the old users? Or we the young users? Or we the new users? I'm not saying that there is not development or change, just that this is nothing new, or even a new development. This has going for a long time, it just reached a new cycle and and a new generation of users. > Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. This is a fundamental problem of every app and space. But interoperability does exist here and there, it's not just exports. > Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Not really? They only established a common foundation for interoperability. Which is also what other apps are doing to some degree. But you still have limitations by everything which is not covered by this foundation. For example, can Logseq handle dataview-syntax? Or generally any obsidian-plugin has it's own special syntax? What about other markdown-editors? How much do they support the special syntax used by obsidian or it's plugins? True, the markdown-space has now a healthy movement toward interoperability and gains many nice functionalities. But it's not like this is especially new. And all those features also existed before Markdown in some app, in some way or another. Nothing is really new here. What's happening is that a new platform is growing, collection nice stuff from the collective pool of abilities, and a new consolidation is happening. This happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it dies. Funny enough, the WWW was one of the first and most successful of this movements. And markdown grew from this as a simplification, to now grew into the same space where WWW started and obsidian now moves toward too, just in a different flavor. This whole "new" movement is just replicating where others were already before in different cloths. > Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... So has Org-mode 10 years ago, XML 20 Years ago. HTML 30 years ago. More or less, the numbers may be a bit off. > It's more than hype for me. Good for you. I'm not question that. Just saying this generation is not the first one having that.

quaunaut 4y ago

> Outliners are used in this area for decades. What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features. To say that what we have now is nothing but a new hype cycle while the Zettelkasten method was only widely exposed within the last couple of decades, and was not utilized in the design of past Outliners, shows you don't really understand what's actually changed.

slightwinder 4y ago
Zettelkasten is nothing new and just hype. Only shows that you just don't know this space, and it's history. Obviously there is improvement, but it's not in methods or data-structures, it's with technology and implementations. We are now at the point where we can move fast with implementations and glue much more features together.
- quaunaut 4y ago
  Then please, illuminate me. Because the implications of Luhmann's use of the Zettelkasten weren't widely available till the last decade, and weren't available in software until the same period. So what exactly don't I know? Genuinely.
  - slightwinder 4y ago
    Luhmann methods are known since the 80s, at least in europe. And I think I saw the first digital implementation around 2006 or 2008. Looking it up, the first(?) Digital Zettelkasten after Luhmann method was in 2004 already at version 2.5, so it's likely quite older. But dates are not important here. Luhmanns method is simply not that special, nor unique. Many scientists and artist used similar methods and tools. He is mostly just replicating what was common at the time, but with some twist. And in the 80s or 90s is would be really awesome, probably even somewhat groundbreaking. But today? It's just another graph-system which you find in wikis or hypertext for decades now. And most people are not even using the benefits of his number-system, just calling everything zettelkasten which is just a wiki otherwise, leaving even less of his originality. Though, in digital space it make less sense anyway, so not a big lose. But for whatever reason, there now this hype from people who seem to have know knowledge about those space or it's history, or even really understand the terms, thinking Luhmanns method is called Zettelkasten...

TuringTest 4y ago

> Outliners are used in this area for decades. What outliners do you know which allow end-users to feed their data into formulas for processing it without using general-purpose programming languages? I'm genuinely interested, as I've been exploring these tools for years and I haven't found any that meets my requirements. > So, SQL How many end-users without any programming experience are able to create moderately complex SQL queries? With a data-centric outliner tool, they'll be able to decompose those into several simple graphical queries.

slightwinder 4y ago
> What outliners do you know which allow end-users to feed their data into formulas for processing it without using general-purpose programming languages? Bit of a pointless constraint, the talk is about outliners, not no-code-datamangment. Which tool today does this even offer on a useful level? But you can look at leo editor (https://leoeditor.com https://leoeditor.com), which is active for 20+ years, fully scriptable and extendable. Though, it's a hot piece of garbage for laymen. It's offers a bunch of features and plugins even for non-coders, but I'm not sure it would satisfy you for this area, if you can't code. Obsidian is probably better than, even if it has more limitations at the moment. But I'm not sure if there ever is a tool which will satisfy everyone with just a no-code-approach.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  > Bit of a pointless constraint, the talk is about outliners, not no-code-datamangment. The point I'm making is that those are both aspects of the same substrate, and modern knowledge tools are exploring the gap between those two - as well as expanding them in new directions. Yes, certainly Leo is one of the closest tools on which to build a system like that, although it still relies too much on Python programming (and its usability leaves a lot to be desired, even if the concepts are solid). I expect that the next popular tool in that space will grow either from online notebooks like Jupyter or from desktop linked note-takers like logseq. (BTW I can code, but I don't want to; remembering the syntax details of the needed APIs does not come natural to me, so it's usually not worth the effort). I still believe that it is possible to grow a programming tool similar to Excel but with structured hierarchical content, without requiring coding more complex than spreadsheet formulas and filters.

ryanjamurphy 4y ago

> What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... The only thing the user has to do is work with that single page of information. It's more than hype for me.

slightwinder 4y ago
> You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" The concepts are old and have a new hype. The apps are new. But generally, it doesn't matter much for the user whether you have some old-school desktop-app with gtk or Qt, or a "modern" electron app, or some webapp on your own server or some service in the cloud. At the end it's all the same ideas and concepts in different colors and flavors. > If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? That entirely depends on who is "we". We which are all users? Or we the old users? Or we the young users? Or we the new users? I'm not saying that there is not development or change, just that this is nothing new, or even a new development. This has going for a long time, it just reached a new cycle and and a new generation of users. > Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. This is a fundamental problem of every app and space. But interoperability does exist here and there, it's not just exports. > Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Not really? They only established a common foundation for interoperability. Which is also what other apps are doing to some degree. But you still have limitations by everything which is not covered by this foundation. For example, can Logseq handle dataview-syntax? Or generally any obsidian-plugin has it's own special syntax? What about other markdown-editors? How much do they support the special syntax used by obsidian or it's plugins? True, the markdown-space has now a healthy movement toward interoperability and gains many nice functionalities. But it's not like this is especially new. And all those features also existed before Markdown in some app, in some way or another. Nothing is really new here. What's happening is that a new platform is growing, collection nice stuff from the collective pool of abilities, and a new consolidation is happening. This happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it dies. Funny enough, the WWW was one of the first and most successful of this movements. And markdown grew from this as a simplification, to now grew into the same space where WWW started and obsidian now moves toward too, just in a different flavor. This whole "new" movement is just replicating where others were already before in different cloths. > Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... So has Org-mode 10 years ago, XML 20 Years ago. HTML 30 years ago. More or less, the numbers may be a bit off. > It's more than hype for me. Good for you. I'm not question that. Just saying this generation is not the first one having that.