Learn about Concept Maps
cmap.ihmc.us
cmap.ihmc.us
A concept map is slightly easier than writing in bulletpoints because it can ignore structure. But this makes it incredibly difficult for anyone, including myself, to read after it is written.
At best, I use a concept map as an intermediary stage for figuring out how to write in bulletpoints, write in paragraphs, or draw in diagrams. This intermediary stage never lasts overnight for me, and I discard the concept map immediately.
Centrality, Components, Cliques might be helpful for general network analysis: https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorith...
The difference between a URI and a URL; a URL is supposed to be dereferenceable and retrievable.
Named Graphs are composed of triples:
{named_graph_uri, subject_uri, predicate_uri, value_uri, [datatype_uri, language_uri]}
{g, s, p, o, [d, l]}
Though, general systems are more complex than the average [concept] network: there are nonlinearities in so many of the observed relations between components that trees and DAGs are laughably insufficient; systems descriptions require more than naievely-acyclical graphs without nonlinearity in independent relations even.
Graph (disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph
Glossary of systems theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_systems_theory
How best to describe nonlinear relations without a MultiDiGraph that bundles edges together by [QFT] field, because they're objectively not statistically independent?
{named_graph_uri, subject_uri, predicate_uri, object, [datatype_uri, language_uri]}
{g, s, p, o, [d], [l]}
@base <_#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix schema: <https://schema.org/> .
:Node, a, rdfs:Class .
:linksTo, a, rdfs:Property .
:Shapes, a, :Node .
:Shapes, :linksTo, :Rectangle .
:Rectangle, a, :Node .
:Rectangle, :linksTo, :Square .
:Square, a, :Node .
:Square, rdfs:label, "Square" .
:Square, schema:name, "Square" .
:Rectangle, rdfs:subClassOf, :Shape .
:Square, rdfs:subClassOf, :Rectangle .
Mind maps are very different from concept maps, except that they both arrange boxes and lines on paper.
If you look at Buzan's Mind mapping book, you'll find that he has a definition that virtually no mind map in common use adheres to.
(https://www.2uo.de/Books/the-mind-map-book/ is very incomplete, just a few notes, but look especially at "central image", "branches varying in thickness", "Only one word per branch" and "lines only as long as words")
Similarly, at least the first twenty videos on YouTube I've seen promising to show concept mapping aren't concept maps at all. They are "spider diagrams" (as Buzan calls them), usually with artsy ambitions. And for some reason, many of those were from nurses-in-learning – the term "concept mapping" seems to be very much en vogue in that field.
I'm a very textual person myself, working with endlessly tab-indented text files, but I'm currently trying to look over the fence to the more graphical approaches.
My current approach is, don't fix what is not broken. If I'm happy with the system I have now, let it stay until there is a need to change it.
I do wish you luck on your exploration of graphical approaches though. Let me know if you find them useful. :)
At the end of the data, an endlessly tab indented text file is no different than a mind map. Instead of text files I use infinite list tools such as Dynalist, which have a great feature to convert your list instantly into alternative views such as mind maps.
Agreed. I find they constrain thoughts far more than just a simple list. However, I know that they are helpful for some people.
Psychologists have realized that it is easier for humans to remember a list than a set. That is, memorizing objects AND the order in which they appear is easier than just memorizing the objects.
A lot of our memory is based on sequences. We may think of it as extra information that clutter our memory capacity, but it is actually not the case: have things in a given order, in a given place, in a given color, and it is easier to memorize than if you remove information.
This would be great for writing documentation.
Mind Maps have a hierarchical structure like trees. One topic in the middle, branches and subbranches from there. They are good for: brainstorming, outlining topics, clustering. They suck for: showing interrelations between concepts.
Concept Maps have a network structure. They are (labelled, directed) node-and-link diagrams. They are good for showing interrelations, influences, more complex structures. They suck for: quick and easy outlining, brainstorming, clustering.
What both have in common: They don't scale. Maps with 100 items or more become hard to read and deal with.
The only approach I know of that unites hierarchy and interrelations while maintaining the core benefits of stable spatial layouts is the "iMapping" approach taken by Infinity Maps. Plus it scales. You can easily build maps with thousands of items that are still clearly readable.
Eastgate Tinderbox allows a similar nested spatial model.
Here is an example with some concept maps from one of my books: https://minireference.com/static/conceptmaps/math_and_physic... Lots of information density, and allows to show some of the key connections between concepts.
CmapTools supposrts CXL format (https://cmap.ihmc.us/xml/CXL.html) as export, which is an XML variant. That might be better for exchange...
That was my pain, like when I began to gather information about triangles and took "triangle" as a root point but then I need to change the root point to "flat figures" and I realize that there is no easy way to change the root point in mind-map software I have tried. This problem of mine has been solved with Zettelcasten, currently I am using Obsidian but going to switch for something FOSS.