Outliner Software Forum RSS Feed Forum Posts Feed

Subscribe by Email

CRIMP Defined


Tip Jar

Best of Both Worlds, Twice - I think this was the missing element to a perfect system: The "one db, one tree" nexus is dead.

< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >

Pages:  < 1 2 3 4 5

Posted by Pierre Paul Landry
Jan 29, 2014 at 05:26 PM



I’m more of a practical guy than a “in theory” one. So this discussion is kind of over my head.

IQ is built on the following 15 principles:

1- Items exist in an IQBase (the database engine supports simultaneous multi-users)
2- Items can be assigned any number of values (types: yes/no, text, number and date)
3- Hierarchy is not an intrinsic property of items.
4- Items can have any number of parents and children
5- Items can be made a child of any item except itself
6- Items are not necessarily deleted if a parent is deleted
7- Items are presented in a number of different ways, called views.
8- Some of these views display hierarchy, others not.
9- Currently, the views are: Grids, Search, Calendar, MindMap, Rich Text, Pivot Table and Pivot Charts. Other views are in development
10- Grids can display hierarchy. But users can also opt to display a flat view.
11- All views display items that meet a certain set of criteria, chosen by the users. Criteria typically involve field-values
12- Other applications, such as MS Excel and Word can also be used to view items
13- Changing item field-values can trigger equations and custom code
14- Users can write custom VBScript code
15- Uses can create custom forms which automatically assign field-values to items
Give power and flexibility to users with minimal constraints is IQ’s main philosophy for effective information management

IQ Designer


Posted by 22111
Jan 29, 2014 at 05:42 PM


To the casual reader,

The previous post doesn’t mention the term of recursion anymore, all the less so why it shoul/could be desirable. But you’ll have got the point, as I did,

PPL’s product is on the market, mine is not. ;-)


Posted by Pierre Paul Landry
Jan 29, 2014 at 06:05 PM


22111 wrote:
>The previous post doesn’t mention the term of recursion anymore, all the less so why it should/could be desirable

Perhaps not in the strict sense as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion, but Item 5: “Items can be made a child of any item except itself” implies something close to it, no ?


Posted by Tom
Jan 30, 2014 at 01:33 AM


I signed up just so that I could respond to this thread. I’ve been actively using FreeMind for a couple months and noticed they added cloning (recursion) in version 1.0.0. Of course it has a bug in the stable release, and I don’t expect a new build anytime soon!

This encouraged me to really evaluate how I was using the tool anyway; and while I think that it can be improved to add the functionality I’m looking for—it’s not even designed to be an outliner… I don’t really care for the visual components (styles), as much as structuring ideas without a lot of duplication. I started looking for another tool that would accomplish what I want, and the only thing that may actually come close is your software (InfoQube).

I can tell you understand a lot of concepts that other software is lacking. I don’t want to discourage you at all, because I know that you’ve spent a lot of personal time on this. I’m very thankful for your contributions!!! From a new user perspective though, it is confusing and virtually useless. It has a ton of awesome features, but the UI is overwhelming. The average user is going to want a simple interface to get started with advanced options hidden in structured menus and dialogs.

I’m not suggesting to trash the idea altogether, but if you’re open to feedback then please listen. I am looking for an easy way to outline data without having to duplicate it. I want simple tagging (and tag groups). I want to be able to see my tags depending on what node(s) I have selected in the sidebar and a simple search and check box to show all of them. When I select a tag, then I want to see all the items that have that tag. Same for tag groups. If I decide to delete a mirrored node, then I want the option to delete all of it’s clones (or just break the clone for that particular instance).

Tag groups will essentially act as a field category, and then the tags themselves will be field values that don’t have to be categorized. This will allow me to structure my data so that I can see relations between items, without having to duplicate it and possibly lose focus of my initial idea. E.g. I want to create a parent node of herbal teas, and tag their health benefits… I also want to list their scientific classification in a different structure to see their relationship to each other, which will help me visualize their benefits based on their classification, but in a separate parent. Then I should be able to create a parent called Herbal Teas and clone (mirror) directly to one of the other child nodes from another parent. Otherwise my data is going to lose value if it isn’t consistent.

I know that I’m spitting a lot of ideas out here, but I was hoping you’d be willing to evaluate them to see if you might be interested in changing your UI strategy. I think we’re on the same page, but without a functional product it isn’t very useful for what I (or other users will probably want to accomplish).


Posted by 22111
Feb 12, 2014 at 04:43 PM


PP, “The previous post doesn’t mention the term of recursion anymore, all the less so why it should/could be desirable”, technically, you are right, please replace “mention” by “discuss”, since that’s what I wanted to express, “mention, discussion-wise”; technically, you just LISTED AGAIN the FEATURE, (having listed the feature before), but without adding anything to that listing-the-feature - but I acknowledge that my line blurs the possible discrimination with the latter part of it.

Fact is, your non-avoidance of recursion creates conceptual and “mind” chaos, and you don’t see the prob, which is a viable choice of yours, but it’s a choice; even a sheet of paper does, by its physical aspect, do some “restrain” (and unfortunately too much restrain) on your thinking, and whilst I try to implement some sort of “constructive restrain” (cf. with “ideal”, but non-constructive 3-dimensional “concept maps” and their NIL practical value for working on real-life probs, at least in their current shape), you chose the non-restrained way, as these maps: I acknowledge that choice, but I don’t try to follow it, for the above-mentioned aspect of trying to be more constructive than that (and bearing the limitations of “regular people” ‘s (to who I belong, IQ-wise) functioning-of-thinking, in mind).

Tom, thank you very much for your trying to be constructive, and please forgive me for not being able to discern, at any moment, where you address PP, and where you address me (it starts here, “and the only thing that may actually come close is your software (InfoQube). - I can tell you understand a lot of concepts that other software is lacking. I don’t want to discourage you at all, because I know that you’ve spent a lot of personal time on this. I’m very thankful for your contributions!!!”, and then goes on this thrive. If, by chance, you ONLY addressed PP, without addressing me, I kindly ask forgivance for my preposterousness, but then, there’s this “but without a functional product” part which seems to address me?).

Also, I’ve got real comprehension probs with what you try to describe re what you would consider perfect sw for your means and tasks.

Would you please be so kind as to further develop, give details, give some examples how “your perfect sw” would present data? I’d be perfectly willing to consider, rethink, once I understood what you’re aiming at (and thus understood where it differed from my previous concepts); as I said before, I KNOW perfectly well that both the outlining concept and the Miller Columns concept (which are quite similar, identical even in their underlying structure) will NOT be useful “deeper down” along the indentation level (that’s why I cut the structure up “in the middle”, as detailed in this forum, and from my real-experience, I can say that’s an incredible relief!),

let alone the prob “how to use alternatively-regrouped sub-groups in different contexts”, so I’m totally open to any possible tagging concept overlaying the original tree structure (of which I detailed the superiority here, but as the BASE structure only, and I’m even willing to reconsider that paradigm whenever I* find something equal / more practical / more “complete” (i.e. not having to overlay OTHER structures over a tree structure whilst preserving the ADVANTAGES of a basic tree structure (but not necessarily the tree structure itself).

* = “I” meaning “with the help of my friends”, in case, i.e. in some constructive discussion where I’m more than willing to accept (and to acknowledge as being not mine) contributions from other thinkers, let alone THEIR possible “complete new ideas”, where I just then could say, well, that’s the perfect solution! (And not only in cases where Wikipedia “proves me to have been second” as with those Miller Columns.)

Btw, this sort of PUBLIC disscusion really assures, to any possible contributor of new ideas, that his respective “copyright” (or copyright, without any quotes, after all) will be strictly preserved, the advantage over patents being that possible solutions will possible come from various developers (cf. the pauperization of sw development, for now something about 30 years, for MS “owning too much”).

Thus, again, Tom, please be so kind as do develop what you’re after, further.

As for FreeMind, I had been pointed to its cloning feature, then checked it, but it’s awful; it’s intra-file: Some sw house with real, big money (MJ and some 2, 3 others in that sub market) should FINALLY look into creating INTER-file mm clones (which technically are perfectly possible, I wrote on this in the Ultra Recall forum, among others). And of course, let’s not mix up cloning / referencing with recursion, but this being said, I’m not here to reveal possible argumentative haziness, but in order to trigger many more good ideas, in common effort, than I’d be able to stumble upon, all alone.

PP, “Another example is any good old web page. It may link to sub-pages, and these will typically link back to the main page. A nice convenience and something we don’t even think about. The same can be done in IQ.” ( in http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=35633.25 ). Now, as a prof developper, you should not mix up references with recursion, right? (And yes, if sometimes, technically, they have the same origins, we should look after them being perfectly distinct, even from the technical pov, in order for the lack of distinction not becoming a trap then.) But since you maintain the non-distinction, please allow for my falling back into that “family parable”: Yes, having sex with your ancestors might be a “nice convenience”, and most three-years-olds would happily enter into it… it’s just some time later that big, big probs will present, from such blatant misbehavior on the part of their creator(s) (be it pop or mom) (and to further remain within that pic: the child is OUT of the womb, you see, no (acceptable) means to re-insert even “parts” of it into there (or the other way round - I’m very sorry for the (unintended obscenity here, but IM recursion is obscene)...) So we have to look out for something less destructive (“then intra-family sex”), and without barring the (highly desired) intra-family intimacy. Enough said. To regain the IM world, it’s all about “making anything desirable possible, but without creating chaos in your head - just as in the family setting. Your mileage might differ… ;-)

As said, I know outlining is not enough; but it’s the best home base, from my experience, we’ve got at to this point. Thus, we need something really good in order to replace it, or then, lesser but more problable alternative, we’d have to invent something to overlay that base structure: We’re in need of a real smart tagging component, and that’s why we first have to identify what our ideal (= optimized in their realization / “work flow”) tasks will be.

And Tom, you ain’t wrong in your perception, from my dispersed writings, it all appears (too) complicated, currently, but I once said, in order to present sw as very easy, streamlined, “perfect”, to users, it’s a whole lotta piece of programming that’s needed behind the scenes. My writing just blur that distinction, but I’m after the purest, simplest sw on earth, from the users’ perspective, promised.


Pages:  < 1 2 3 4 5

Back to topic list