Skip to main content
tana
Product Company Community App Get early access
Community
Search
Log In
Log In Sign Up
Aura

Aura

Joined Jun 7, 2023 Last seen May 1, 2024
Posts 1 Comments 2

⁨Aura⁩'s Posts

Newest Top
Newest Top
Aura Aura Jun 7, 2023

Includes - the inverse of "part of" semantic fields

Actions

Explain the problem as you see it

I really love the "part of" semantic fields. I think they really help me with the structure of my workspace and use them liberally. However, I've now run into a situation where I would like the opposite.

I sometimes have a standard version of something and a deluxe version. The deluxe version has everything in the standard version, plus some extra stuff. Currently, to represent this structure, I have to use a "part of" semantic field on the standard version. This means that if I'm adding a new deluxe version after the standard one (as is often the case, there's a reason they're separate), then I have to start creating the new one, then go find the old one and add it there. It also means that adding the same data means I have to edit two separate parts of my workspace, which could potentially make things messier. (bi-directional fields would also help with this specific point, they could even work nicely with my solution)

Why is this a problem for you?

Structuring my data in a way that is intuitive and makes sense to me is important, because it helps me understand it better (and I'm not writing it down for nothing!). The harder I have to work to translate the stuff in my brain (or other sources of information) to paper, the harder it will be to do the reverse down the road.

Suggest a solution

Consider "includes", which does the same thing as "part of", but the roles are reversed! The node with the field becomes the "parent" component, rather than the "child".

1 ⁨1⁩ ⁨comment⁩