I’ve put some thought into this, and I’m not sure if these will be issues as I haven’t created it yet. But I feel they might be. If anyone has any proposed solutions for these issues it’d be greatly appreciated.
Possible redundancy between Zettelkasten notes and this processes’ “atomic references”.
My thought initially was that it wouldn’t happen because I would just keep ‘arbitrary facts’ outside of my Zettelkasten. But I feel as though that may be inevitable. My goal is that this could work alongside a Zettelkasten without creating any redundancy or incompatibilities.
Update on this: I just read this comment here, regarding nested vaults. I think this could be a clear solution to this issue. Reference would live inside both vaults as one is nested. It could add to my overall Zettelkasten repository, but would also work as a standalone. The only remaining issue would be that References would only be able to be linked “to” and wouldn’t be able to link out of the nested vault. That shouldn’t be an issue considering the rules I outlined above and the design of this system, but in general I may not want my Zettelkasten itself playing by those same rules…
Handling Conditionals in checklists
Now I could either have multiple types of checklists, which could get really redundant, or some other solution. Creating a plugin for bpmn-js was a fleeting thought I had but I think that kinda defeats the purpose of this being in markdown and in obsidian.
I’m thinking now this can be solved if “simple checklists” are definitely used as “partials” for “complicated checklists” - for instance: Complicated checklist A has two possible steps that could be performed for “step 2” depending on the outcome of “step 1”. So, step two would have “simple checklist - outcome A” and “simple checklist - outcome B” both as options for step two. Avoiding the redundancy of having two “complicated checklists”