Greetings,

So, taking up the challenge of creating a taxonomy for "outliners," I've done a little sketching and thinking in Tinderbox and come up with a little theory.

First of all, let me propose that our favorite type of program has two major attributes: 1. the main purpose of the program; and 2. the main organizational scheme. And each of these has two major options, as follows:

1. Purpose
A. Collecting information from other sources (clipping from the web, storing PDFs, note-taking, etc...)
B. Creating information/knowledge from ourselves (brainstorming, thinking, outlining, writing, etc...)

2. Organization
C. Topic-based organization (typical topic hierarchies)
D. Search-based organization (tagging, text indexing)

Now, I'm not suggesting that any application focuses exclusively on one organization type necessarily, and I'm sure most app developers would insist that their software can both collect and create. What I am suggesting is that each application can be categorized generally as an AC, AD, BC, BD based on what it does best. For example, Evernote would be an AD application because it excels at collecting information and its primary organizational structure is tagging.

Given this (and bear with me even if you disagree totally), it is possible to create a quadrant chart where we can place applications. And I've done just that, at least as a beginning:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/155244/-Outliner--Taxonomy.png

Being higher or lower or to the right or to the left doesn't necessarily mean that an application is best in that category, just that it does that in extreme. For example, Inspiration found its way to the top right of my chart (extreme create/topic), not necessarily because it is the best outliner, but because it is SO focused on creating outlines and has almost no facility (other than cut and paste) for collecting info from other sources. On the other hand, AskSam falls far to the left (i.e. extreme search) because it has a very good, quick indexed search.

I would submit that extreme topic-based creator applications are what we would call pure outliners, while extreme topic-based collector applications are hierarchical free-form databases (info trees?). I'm not sure what to call the other two quadrant apps as yet.

Anyway, I suspect there is really no benefit from having done this analysis, other than it is fun. Perhaps, however, it will generate some interesting discussion.

Steve Z.

For some reason the link in the note above doesn't seem to work. Let's try again:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/otm8yrkc5y3vi0p/-Outliner--Taxonomy.png

Okay, still didn't work. I've renamed the image, so let's try again:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/155244/Outliner-Taxonomy.png

Great, Steve! This is what I was groping towards when trying to explain the difference between Tinderbox and DevonThink in Peter's thread.

Also a nice demonstration of the utility of Tinderbox.

Steve, great job, and I will disagree with you that there is no benefit from this analysis; I expect that at least people who come here looking for the right tool for a certain job will have a much more clear starting point --and CRIMPers will be able to see in which quadrant they are missing out...

Now, in respect to the taxonomy:

- Re the Main Purpose, I believe that the Collect-Create axis covers it quite well. I can also think of applications whose main purpose is to "Create via re-Organisation of Collected information" and I would place these closest to the middle of the axis. Brainstorm, Connected Text (e.g. break down imported text to smaller chunks and inter-associate these) and possibly Tinderbox would fit in this description.

- Re the Organisational Scheme, I am not so sure. For starters, I don't think of tags as saved searches; the critical aspect of search is that it is machine-driven. Tags, just like the Topic approach, rely on the user to proactively classify the information. The fact that they are often in flat lists and not hierarchical is secondary. By contrast, search-based is just that: the user collects the information but is not concerned with its organisation, they just expect the software's indexing to be able to locate it quickly when needed.

As an example, take Evernote. As discussed often in this forum, it boasts a very powerful search but lacks hierarchical folders; as a result, one would be tempted to classify it as a Search application. However, it also offers hierarchical tags, with which info can be organised as in a folder tree (but items can very easily belong to more than one categories). In this respect then, tags are just a more flexible take on Topics.

So, I would initially maintain the Search-Topic axis but I would restate the description to include tags under Topics, i.e. the distinction would be something like "Search (Automatic)" vs. "Topics (User-defined). Artificial intelligence applications which can themselves extract Topics would fall somewhere in the middle.

I also see an additional 'dimension': this is the organisation of information items via relationships. It is the approach taken by TheBrain and all wikis, including ConnectedText. Sure, these tools also provide tagging, but this is complementary. At their core lies the original concept of hypertext.

How would this be depicted? I believe that a triangle would be in order, i.e. Search - Topics - Relationships. I expect this is not so easy to produce, but I think that it more accurately represents the various approaches.

Thanks for the feedback, Alexander. My responses or mingled with yours below.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Now, in respect to the taxonomy:

- Re
the Main Purpose, I believe that the Collect-Create axis covers it quite well. I can
also think of applications whose main purpose is to "Create via re-Organisation of
Collected information" and I would place these closest to the middle of the axis.
Brainstorm, Connected Text (e.g. break down imported text to smaller chunks and
inter-associate these) and possibly Tinderbox would fit in this description.

I agree with this. Let me clarify my use of the term "create." I don't mean "creative." This is really more a question of the source of the actual content. Does the application facilitate collection from other sources, or generation from one's own thoughts and ideas. Most every application can do both, but where on the spectrum does the application's strength fall? I don't intend to imply that one type of application makes you more creative than another, or that one type is more useful to "creative type" people.

- Re
the Organisational Scheme, I am not so sure. For starters, I don't think of tags as
saved searches; the critical aspect of search is that it is machine-driven. Tags,
just like the Topic approach, rely on the user to proactively classify the
information. The fact that they are often in flat lists and not hierarchical is
secondary. By contrast, search-based is just that: the user collects the
information but is not concerned with its organisation, they just expect the
software's indexing to be able to locate it quickly when needed.

I do not disagree, but let me explain why I chose to include tags with search instead of topic. I wrestled with this some before deciding to include tags under search, because I was not thinking about what the user did, but how the application works. The topic approach is static and manual. The user physically puts the item in its place and that is how it is displayed and found. With tags, you can apply multiple keywords, some of which you may never make reference to. In some programs, Evernote being especially so, the user experience of tags is similar to topics. Perhaps instead of "search" I should use the term "index." It may make my view clearer. In that case tags are just a way for the user to more actively index the information.

As an example, take
Evernote. As discussed often in this forum, it boasts a very powerful search but lacks
hierarchical folders; as a result, one would be tempted to classify it as a Search
application. However, it also offers hierarchical tags, with which info can be
organised as in a folder tree (but items can very easily belong to more than one
categories). In this respect then, tags are just a more flexible take on Topics.

You may be right. The key is trying to figure out the taxonomy that will give people the best idea of which application will best serve their needs. This requires more contemplation and input from others.

So,
I would initially maintain the Search-Topic axis but I would restate the description
to include tags under Topics, i.e. the distinction would be something like "Search
(Automatic)" vs. "Topics (User-defined). Artificial intelligence applications
which can themselves extract Topics would fall somewhere in the middle.

I also see
an additional 'dimension': this is the organisation of information items via
relationships. It is the approach taken by TheBrain and all wikis, including
ConnectedText. Sure, these tools also provide tagging, but this is complementary.
At their core lies the original concept of hypertext.

In my initial approach, I assumed the relationships were topical. That is, if Topic A in ConnectedText contains a link to Topic B, this is a topical scheme. However, it is NOT a hierarchical scheme, so perhaps it does require its own dimension. More food for thought!

If this is to be useful, then the ultimate goal should be to give us a basis for comparing applications, and for people looking for tools to find the one(s) that best meet their needs. We're off to a good start. I'll see if I can keep the ball rolling.

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Let me clarify my use of the term "create." I don't mean "creative."
This is really more a question of the source of the actual content.

Understood. I considered also the term "develop", but this also applies to the re-organisation I mentioned (therefore making no distinction on the source), so "Collect-Create" are probably the best ends for the axis.

I wrestled with this some before deciding to include tags under search,
because I was not thinking about what the user did, but how the application works. The
topic approach is static and manual. The user physically puts the item in its place and
that is how it is displayed and found. With tags, you can apply multiple keywords, some
of which you may never make reference to. In some programs, Evernote being especially
so, the user experience of tags is similar to topics. Perhaps instead of "search" I
should use the term "index." It may make my view clearer. In that case tags are just a way
for the user to more actively index the information.

I feel that the proactive vs. passive role of the user in organising the information is an important one to make, (a) because with Google and desktop search engines very little such proactive work is done nowadays and (b) it is by doing such work, e.g. in academia, that one recognises patterns, develops theories, perceives solutions, etc.

You may be right. The key is trying to figure out the taxonomy that will give
people the best idea of which application will best serve their needs. This requires
more contemplation and input from others.

Definitely.

In my initial approach, I assumed the relationships were topical. That is, if Topic A in
ConnectedText contains a link to Topic B, this is a topical scheme. However, it is NOT a
hierarchical scheme, so perhaps it does require its own dimension.

I think that relationships may imply various associations between Topics other than topical; in any case, as one moves around their model, they will eventually find all Topics interrelated...

If this is to be useful, then the ultimate goal should be to give us a basis
for comparing applications, and for people looking for tools to find the one(s) that
best meet their needs.

You might also want to consider the "content vs. structure" distinction discussed here http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/4232/30 and briefly on the next page.

Although Steve's taxonomy demands more thought, I am pretty happy with it as it is.

For me the y-axis/North-South/primary-purpose distinction is the key one. It is here that for newbies there appears to be the most confusion. It would be very useful to be able to indicate to them where on that spectrum particular applications lie.

The x-axis is likely to be complicated by the understandable desire of developers to create applications that identify, organise and access information as much as possible every-which-way - topical placement, tags, linking, wikis, hierarchical folders, "artificial intelligence", maps, diagrams, concordance-based search, to name the few I can immediately think of - and therefore will probably be more arbitrary. The complexities involved in adding and understanding an extra dimension could outweigh the advantages.

What a great discussion guys! Very helpful. I have no time to comment just now. I will just say that the "taxonomy" diagram you produced Steve is very useful. Perhaps we could develop it further by critiquing the axes and adding more apps to flesh this out.

MS Word outline, extreme top right.
NoteMap, top right.
MyBase, bottom right.
Hard-disk file system, extreme bottom right.
Ecco Pro, on the y-axis, slightly below Tinderbox?
Zoot, just to the left of the origin, on the x-axis?

(Just being provocative.)

Well, clearly not so provocative. ;)

Hugh wrote:

Well, clearly not so provocative. ;)

Actually, it wasn't that provocative, but only because I agree with everything you've written.

The tardiness of my response to yours and other comments has more to do with the fact that they are all provocative and I've wanted to think things through before responding.

Besides, smoke was beginning to emerge from my ears as my brain was grinding away. Had to let it cool down!

SZ

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

I feel that the proactive vs. passive
role of the user in organising the information is an important one to make, (a) because
with Google and desktop search engines very little such proactive work is done
nowadays and (b) it is by doing such work, e.g. in academia, that one recognises
patterns, develops theories, perceives solutions, etc.

In support of my above proposed approach, the following older thread might be of interest http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/63/

(Found it while looking for posts on hierarchical tags)

Hugh wrote:

The x-axis is likely to be complicated by the understandable desire of developers
to create applications that identify, organise and access information as much as
possible every-which-way - topical placement, tags, linking, wikis, hierarchical
folders, "artificial intelligence", maps, diagrams, concordance-based search,
to name the few I can immediately think of - and therefore will probably be more
arbitrary. The complexities involved in adding and understanding an extra
dimension could outweigh the advantages.

Regardless of the terms used (e.g. keywords, tags, categories...) and the way to present the information --which is a completely different issue- I do not think I have seen a way to provide access to information which doesn't fit under one of the following:
- Topical organisation
- Relationships
- No organisation at all (rely on search)

I'd be very interested in seeing my above claim refuted.

Regarding the taxonomy, to keep things simple I would suggest Search (automatic) - Organisation (proactive) for the X-axis.

This discussion is happening on so many threads that I don't know which one to reply to :)

I feel that some of the disagreements here stem from the fact that we use "writing" as a monolithic activity, when in fact "writing" can mean something very different for different people, and therefore different types of tools would be more suitable.

E.g. "writing" as in writing up the results of a large research study where the process of writing is still a process of discovery might be very different than writing up something with which one is fairly familiar, such as one's diary entry or the manual for a software or some other business writing. I'm sure fiction writers engage in yet another type of writing. So "outlining" would mean something different in each case, therefore we should be careful about making definite statements about which outlining software is the best one for "writing."

Steve, Dr Andus and others, I believe you'll find this post by Piggydb's developer quite interesting:
http://piggydb.net/2012/06/20/the-piggydb-way-1-tag-as-concept-over-tag-as-index/