Being stuck with the conception of permanent note
Hi ! I'm a bit confused with the goal of
permanent note in a standard ZK workflow.
Sometimes, I feel it is redundant or useless.
Context: I mainly use note-taking to capture and convert informations into pieces of reusable cards (for technical docs). My main interest are science (physics/math) and computer science (programing/software/web).
What I pretend to know about permanent note
In pure theory, I believe (maybe I'm wrong ) a
permanent note is a card :
- that should contain enough text about a specific topic (atomic)
- that should contain enough informations to "live alone" (self-contained)
- that should be reusable in other topic context (portable)
- that should contain links to spread the web
- that should contain references to sources (context)
The permenant note, from my head to paper
When I have an idea, I write it down to paper (
fleeting note) and I must convert this note into a well-formed, in my own word
I am unconfortable with this new
permanent note because there is no reference at all.
The permanent note, from books to idea
When I read about
literary note (or
reference note), it is said I should pick up an interesting passage, write it into my own words and so on.
Then, split the
literary note into multiple "ideas" which are called
I really don't see the difference between the aggregated
permanent note in my
This feeling is intensified when I write a technical subject (e.g. http).
Maybe I suffer from misconception and you could provide some keys to understand please.
If someone knows about some basic samples of ZK implementations, it would be great !
Thank you !
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!