"First thoughts about using the fedwiki to produce narrative" by Brian Marick. matrix 
[plus 19 replies in thread] up to matrix (room's timeline position)
Prompt:
Take this text as the result of a journey (sequence of waypoints, slips of paper/Zettel) through a multi-way system (box of slips of paper, Zettelkasten) and visualise all the slips of paper (ideas) and sequences of slips of paper that could be traversed to reproduce the following text: (and flag possible inconsistencies) […]
Prompt
Okay, so I need to visualize the slips of paper (Zettels) and their sequences from the given text. Let me start by understanding the text first. It seems like a conversation between Brian Marick and Ward discussing the use of fedwiki for creating narratives. Brian talks about his experiences, how the wiki helps or doesn't help, and Ward responds with his own thoughts and examples. There are some asides and maybe some inconsistencies in the flow. First, I should identify each individual slip. Each paragraph or comment by Brian or Ward could be a separate slip. Then, figure out the connections between them. The main topics are using fedwiki for narrative, metaphors in computing, killing your babies (editing), spikes in XP terms, conflicting metaphors, and the process of writing vs. editing. Looking at the text, the initial slip is Brian's first thoughts. Then he elaborates, gives examples, Ward interjects with comments. Each time a new person speaks, that's probably a new slip. So maybe each block starting with a name (Brian, Ward) is a slip. Then, the connections would be how each slip references previous ones. For example, Brian talks about "kill your babies," and Ward responds to that, maybe? Or maybe the slips are linked by topics mentioned. Wait, the user wants to visualize all possible sequences that could reproduce the text. So each slip could have multiple outgoing links, and the text we see is one possible traversal. The challenge is mapping the existing text to possible sequences and links, and flagging inconsistencies. Possible inconsistencies: For example, Brian says he doesn't understand something Ward mentioned, but maybe the slip that Ward refers to isn't directly linked. Or maybe the flow jumps topics without clear links. Also, the mention of a canyon and picture might be an aside that's not connected to the main thread. I need to outline each slip with their content, then note possible links between them. For example, Brian's first slip about fedwiki and narrative leads to a slip about "kill your babies," which then links to Ward's comment on metaphors. But maybe in the Zettelkasten, slips can have multiple links, so a single slip could be part of several sequences. Also, Brian's mention of "spike in XP terms" could link to agile development concepts, which might be another slip. Ward's example of team metaphors (conveyor belt vs. relay racers) might link to a slip about conflicting metaphors in software. Another thing: the user wants possible inconsistencies. Maybe some slips don't logically follow, or there's a missing link. For instance, when Ward mentions the canyon, Brian doesn't understand, but maybe the canyon reference is from a different context not present in the current text. Or the transition from metaphors to canyon is abrupt. So, step by step: 1. Extract each slip (each speaker's entry). 2. Note the content and possible keywords/topics. 3. Determine possible links between slips (e.g., same topic, response to previous). 4. Map the existing sequence as per the text. 5. Identify other possible sequences based on links. 6. Check for inconsistencies in the flow or missing links. Let me start by listing the slips: 1. Brian's first thoughts on fedwiki and narrative. 2. Brian elaborates on metaphor wiki and through-lines. 3. Brian's realization about software metaphors being impoverished. 4. Brian on "kill your babies" and the wiki as a box of old cables. 5. Ward comments on metaphors in computing history. 6. Brian responds about existing text as a spike. 7. Ward talks about conflicting metaphors (conveyor vs. relay). 8. Ward's aside on canyon and analogy. 9. Brian doesn't understand Ward's aside. 10. Brian (or Brian again?) praises the sprawl of ideas in FedWiki. 11. Brian suggests making a new wiki for narrative. 12. Ward's thoughts on paragraph as index cards and writing workflows. Wait, the text alternates between Brian and Ward. Let me number each section properly. Looking again: 1. Brian: First thoughts about fedwiki... (initial slip) 2. Brian: My metaphor wiki... 3. Brian: I don't think fedwiki notes... 4. Brian: Whereas working on a decent example... 5. Brian: That's a rather fundamental realization... 6. Brian: A good thing the metaphor pages have done... 7. Ward: I’m trying to think of a word... 8. Brian: That's nice. It's also nice... 9. Ward: Sometimes the metaphorical roots... 10. Ward: I’m trying to recall... 11. Brian: Ward: Yes, but I'd argue... Wait, here it's a bit confusing. The text has "Ward" and "brianmarick" as section headers. Let me parse each section: - "First thoughts about using the fedwiki..." by Brian - Then "brianmarick" again: "My metaphor wiki..." - Then "brianmarick": "I don't think fedwiki notes..." - Then "brianmarick": "Whereas working on a decent example..." - Then "brianmarick": "That's a rather fundamental realization..." - Then "brianmarick": "A good thing the metaphor pages have done..." - Then "Ward": "I’m trying to think of a word..." - Then "brianmarick": "That's nice. It's also nice..." - Then "Ward": "Sometimes the metaphorical roots..." - Then "Ward": "I’m trying to recall..." - Then "brianmarick": "Ward: Yes, but I'd argue..." (This seems like a misformat; maybe Brian is responding to Ward's previous comment) - Then "Ward": "The aha was that they were talking..." - Then "Ward": "Aside. I’m on the trail..." - Then "brianmarick": "I don't understand." - Then "Ward": "I stopped by a canyon..." - Then "Brian": "The fact that your ideas sprawled..." (Note the switch from "brianmarick" to "Brian") - Then "Brian": "I don't think it's appropriate..." - Then "Brian": "As I've watched your blog..." - Then "Brian": "I don't think there is any way..." This formatting is a bit inconsistent. Some headers are "brianmarick", others "Ward", then "Brian". Maybe it's a typo. Also, some lines start with "Ward" but are part of Brian's response? For example: "Ward: Yes, but I'd argue..." is under "brianmarick" which might be Brian quoting Ward. Hmm, this could be an inconsistency. Also, later "Brian" instead of "brianmarick". Possible inconsistencies in the text formatting, which could lead to slips being misattributed. For example, if a slip is labeled "Brian" vs. "brianmarick", are they the same person? Probably, but the inconsistency might be an error. So, to model this, each section with a name is a slip. The sequence in the text is the order of slips. But some slips might be connected in non-linear ways. For example, Ward's comments might be responses to Brian's slips, but in the Zettelkasten, they could be linked bidirectionally. Visualization could be a graph where nodes are slips, edges are links. The existing text is a path through the graph. Other paths could include jumping from Brian's initial thoughts to Ward's comments on metaphors, then back to Brian's realization. Inconsistencies might be where a response doesn't directly link to a previous slip, or where the flow is broken. For example, Ward's canyon aside isn't clearly connected to the prior discussion, leading to Brian's confusion. This could indicate a missing link or an off-topic slip. Another point: Brian suggests making a new wiki for narrative, which could link back to his initial thoughts but also to Ward's comments on workflows. The discussion on paragraphs as index cards might be another thread. So, putting this all together, the visualization would show multiple branches: one on metaphors, one on wiki structure, one on writing processes. The existing text is a traversal that weaves through these branches, but other traversals could focus on specific topics. Inconsistencies to flag: the sudden canyon analogy with no prior context, the switch from "brianmarick" to "Brian", possible misattributions if slips are mislabeled, and the unresolved confusion when Brian doesn't understand Ward's aside.Think (DeepSeek):
To visualize the Zettelkasten structure and potential traversal paths for this text, we present a node-link diagram with annotations for inconsistencies. Each numbered node represents a "slip" (idea), and arrows indicate likely connections. The original text represents one possible path (highlighted in **bold**), while dotted lines indicate alternative valid paths. --- ### **Zettelkasten Structure** **Nodes** (numbered by order in text): 1. **Brian**: First thoughts about fedwiki narratives 2. **Brian**: Metaphor wiki goals (reference + through-lines) 3. **Brian**: Fedwiki notes insufficient for narrative insights 4. **Brian**: Software metaphors are "impoverished" (Aha!) 5. **Brian**: Rethinking scripts vs. wiki rework burden 6. **Brian**: "Kill your babies" analogy (wiki as storage) 7. **Ward**: Challenge: non-metaphorical computing terms 8. **Brian**: Existing text as "spike" (write-to-throw-away) 9. **Ward**: Conflicting metaphors (conveyor vs. relay) 10. **Ward**: New Relic reorganization example 11. **Brian/Ward?**: Computational metaphors lack "oomph" (*formatting ambiguity*) 12. **Ward**: Metaphors as unspoken frameworks (Aha!) 13. **Ward**: Canyon aside (unresolved analogy) 14. **Brian**: Confusion about canyon reference 15. **Brian**: Praise for FedWiki’s sprawl + courage 16. **Brian**: New wiki for narrative + link to old 17. **Brian**: Paragraphs as index cards (vs. essays) 18. **Brian**: "Writing to think" vs. "writing for audience" --- ### **Key Connections & Sequences** **Primary Path (Original Text):** 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 → 9 → 10 → 11 → 12 → 13 → 14 → 15 → 16 → 17 → 18
**Alternative Paths**: - **Metaphor Exploration**: 2 ↔ 4 ↔ 7 ↔ 9 ↔ 11 - **Workflow Design**: 1 → 16 → 17 → 18 - **Editing Process**: 6 → 15 → 16
--- ### **Inconsistencies & Ambiguities** 1. **Formatting Errors**: - Node 11 (`Ward: Yes, but I'd argue...`) is nested under `brianmarick`, suggesting misattribution or a missing speaker label. - Shift from `brianmarick` to `Brian` (nodes 15–18) implies inconsistent naming. 2. **Unresolved Asides**: - Node 13 (Ward’s canyon analogy) lacks connection to prior nodes, causing confusion (node 14). This may indicate a missing link or a disconnected thought. 3. **Abrupt Topic Shifts**: - Transition from metaphor conflicts (node 9–10) to computational "oomph" (node 11) is weakly justified. 4. **Implied Missing Nodes**: - Brian’s "kill your babies" (node 6) references a writing concept not explicitly defined earlier. - Node 7 (Ward’s challenge) could link to external slips about computing history. ---
### **Visualization**
Note: mermaid code deleted by Ralf
---
### **Analysis** - The Zettelkasten reflects a non-linear exploration of **narrative design**, **metaphor theory**, and **workflow philosophy**. - The original traversal meanders between topics, with Ward’s contributions acting as counterpoints to Brian’s reflections. - To resolve inconsistencies: - Clarify speaker labels (nodes 11, 15–18). - Add explanatory slips for "kill your babies" and canyon analogy. - Explicitly link conflicting metaphors (node 9–10) to software practices. This structure exemplifies how a Zettelkasten enables branching thought while revealing gaps in argumentation or context. –– DeepSeek
~
Prompt:
Note: Brian and brianmarick are different persons. Give me the diagram code as graphviz dot.
Think (DeepSeek):
Okay, let's start by understanding the user's request. They provided a text conversation between Brian and Ward discussing the use of a fedwiki for narrative creation, and they want a graphviz dot diagram representing the Zettelkasten structure. The previous response used Mermaid, but now they specifically asked for graphviz dot code.
First, I need to parse the original text and identify each node as per the numbered list in the initial answer. The user also noted that "Brian" and "brianmarick" are different people, which I missed before. That's an important correction. So I need to adjust the nodes where the speaker is labeled correctly. Looking at the original text, some nodes were misattributed. For example, node 11 was nested under Brian but should be Ward's statement. Also, nodes 15-18 were labeled as Brian, but according to the correction, "Brian" and "brianmarick" are different, so I need to check the original text again to see who said what. Wait, looking back at the original conversation: The text starts with "First thoughts about using the fedwiki..." by brianmarick, then Ward responds, then brianmarick again. Later, there's a line "Brian: The fact that your ideas sprawled..." which is a different person. So "brianmarick" and "Brian" are two different users. That changes the attribution of nodes 15-18 from Brian (as in the previous answer) to another person named Brian. Wait, maybe the user meant that "brianmarick" is Brian Marick, and "Brian" is another person? The note says they are different, so I need to adjust the labels accordingly. In the original text, the lines are: - brianmarick (Brian Marick) posts first. - Ward responds. - Then brianmarick again. - Then Ward. - Then Brian (different person) chimes in with praise. So nodes 15-18 are by Brian (different from brianmarick). So in the graphviz code, each node should have the correct author label.
Next, the user wants the graphviz code. The previous Mermaid diagram had a primary path and alternative paths, but graphviz doesn't have subgraphs for that in the same way. However, I can represent the primary path with a straight line and alternative paths with dotted lines.
Inconsistencies need to be highlighted, perhaps with color or shape. The user mentioned formatting errors, unresolved asides, etc. So nodes 11,13,14 should be marked differently. I'll structure the nodes with their numbers and labels, then connect them with edges. For the primary path, use solid arrows in order. Alternative paths can be dotted and connect related nodes. Inconsistencies can have a different color, like red. Need to make sure that each node has the correct author. For example, node 11 was previously misattributed to Brian but should be Ward. Node 15-18 are by Brian (different from brianmarick). Also, the user wants the graphviz code. So I'll define each node with a label including the number, author, and a snippet. Then connect them with edges. Use different edge styles for primary vs alternative paths. Highlight inconsistent nodes with color. Let me draft the code step by step: 1. Define all nodes with their attributes. 2. Create edges for the primary path (1->2->3...). 3. Create edges for alternative paths with style=dotted. 4. Add color to inconsistent nodes (11,13,14). 5. Use proper author labels for each node. Wait, node 11: in the original text, after Ward's message about New Relic, there's a line starting with "Ward: Yes, but..." which is node 11. So node 11 is correctly by Ward, not Brian. So previous correction was right. Nodes 15-18: The lines starting with "Brian: The fact that your ideas sprawled..." So this is a different Brian. So nodes 15-18 are by Brian (not brianmarick). So in the node labels, authors are: 1. brianmarick 2. brianmarick 3. brianmarick 4. brianmarick 5. brianmarick 6. brianmarick 7. Ward 8. brianmarick 9. Ward 10. Ward 11. Ward 12. Ward 13. Ward 14. brianmarick 15. Brian 16. Brian 17. Brian 18. Brian Wait, node 14 is "brianmarick: I don't understand." responding to Ward's canyon aside. Then node 15 is Brian's praise. So node 14 is brianmarick, 15-18 are Brian. So in the graph, nodes 1-6,8,14: brianmarick; 7,9-13: Ward; 15-18: Brian. Now, construct the graphviz code with these author labels. Inconsistencies: - Node 11: correctly attributed to Ward? Let me check original text. The line after node 10 is: "Ward: The aha was that they were talking about different ways..." which is node 12. Then node 11 is "Ward: Yes, but I'd argue..." which was nested under brianmarick in the initial text. Wait, the original text provided has: After node 10 (Ward's New Relic example), the next line is: "brianmarick: Ward: Yes, but I'd argue..." which is a formatting error. So node 11 is actually a continuation of Ward's statement but misformatted under brianmarick. So the user's note clarifies that Brian and brianmarick are different, but node 11 is a formatting error where Ward's statement is nested under brianmarick's tag. So in the graph, node 11 is a Ward node but was misformatted. So in the code, node 11 should be labeled as Ward but marked as inconsistent. Similarly, node 13 is Ward's canyon aside, node 14 is brianmarick's confusion. Then node 15 is Brian's comment. So the inconsistencies are node 11 (misattributed), nodes 13-14 (unresolved aside), and nodes 15-18 (inconsistent naming from brianmarick to Brian). So in the graphviz code: - Nodes 11,13,14 are highlighted as inconsistent. Now, structure the graph: Primary path is 1->2->3->4->5->6->7->8->9->10->11->12->13->14->15->16->17->18. Alternative paths are connections like 2->4, 4->7, etc. But in graphviz, arranging this neatly is challenging. To avoid overlapping, maybe use rankdir=LR and group nodes by authors. But the main task is to represent the nodes and edges correctly. So the final code will have all nodes defined, edges for primary path, dotted edges for alternatives, and inconsistent nodes colored. I need to write this in DOT language, ensuring correct syntax. –– DeepSeek
~
Here's the corrected Graphviz DOT code with proper speaker distinctions (`brianmarick` vs. `Brian`), inconsistencies flagged, and traversal paths:
```dot digraph zettelkasten { rankdir=LR; node [shape=rect, style=filled, fontname="Helvetica"]; edge [fontname="Helvetica"]; // Nodes (with speaker distinctions) 1 [label="1: brianmarick\nFirst thoughts about fedwiki narratives"]; 2 [label="2: brianmarick\nMetaphor wiki goals (reference + through-lines)"]; 3 [label="3: brianmarick\nFedwiki notes insufficient for narrative insights"]; 4 [label="4: brianmarick\nSoftware metaphors are 'impoverished' (Aha!)" fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 5 [label="5: brianmarick\nRethinking scripts vs. wiki rework burden"]; 6 [label="6: brianmarick\n'Kill your babies' analogy (wiki as storage)"]; 7 [label="7: Ward\nChallenge: non-metaphorical computing terms"]; 8 [label="8: brianmarick\nExisting text as 'spike' (write-to-throw-away)"]; 9 [label="9: Ward\nConflicting metaphors (conveyor vs. relay)"]; 10 [label="10: Ward\nNew Relic reorganization example"]; 11 [label="11: Ward\nComputational metaphors lack 'oomph'" fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 12 [label="12: Ward\nMetaphors as unspoken frameworks (Aha!)"]; 13 [label="13: Ward\nCanyon aside (unresolved analogy)" fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 14 [label="14: brianmarick\nConfusion about canyon reference" fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 15 [label="15: Brian\nPraise for FedWiki's sprawl + courage"]; 16 [label="16: Brian\nNew wiki for narrative + link to old"]; 17 [label="17: Brian\nParagraphs as index cards (vs. essays)"]; 18 [label="18: Brian\n'Writing to think' vs. 'writing for audience'"]; // Primary path (solid arrows) 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12 -> 13 -> 14 -> 15 -> 16 -> 17 -> 18; // Alternative paths (dotted) 2 -> 4 [style=dotted]; 4 -> 7 [style=dotted]; 7 -> 9 [style=dotted]; 9 -> 11 [style=dotted]; 1 -> 16 [style=dotted]; 6 -> 15 [style=dotted]; 15 -> 16 [style=dotted]; 17 -> 18 [style=dotted]; // Inconsistencies (pink) 4 [fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 11 [fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 13 [fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; 14 [fillcolor="#ffcccc"]; } ```
**Key Features:** 1. Speaker distinctions: - `brianmarick` (original author) - `Brian` (different person, commentator) - `Ward` (collaborator) 2. Inconsistencies flagged in pink: - Node 4: Undefined "kill your babies" reference - Node 11: Abrupt metaphor shift - Node 13: Unresolved canyon analogy - Node 14: Unanswered confusion 3. Path types: - Solid arrows: Primary traversal from the text - Dotted arrows: Alternative logical connections 4. Layout: - Left-to-right flow (rankdir=LR) - Rectangular nodes with speaker labels - Helvetica font for readability To render, paste into a Graphviz viewer (e.g., https://dreampuf.github.io/GraphvizOnline). For publication, adjust colors and layout parameters as needed. –– DeepSeek