How do you differentiate between the concept and the execution of it?

I’m kind of finding my way using Obsidian, but have moved some earlier documentation into Obsidian, but now I’m wondering how you differentiate between writing about a concept, and the execution or application of that concept in relation to linking/tagging/… ?

WorkOut scenario: Say I’ve got a note on my [[WorkOut]] scheme, and I trained using that scheme on Monday through Thursday. On Friday however, I saw a YouTube video which made me rethink what I would like to do in my workout. How do you refer this in your daily notes, and/or other notes?

Journal scenario: I’m writing almost daily journal entries, but every now and then I get some ideas as to how I would like to change my journalling. I.e. switching to digital Bullet Journalling, or similar. Would you tag/link the journal entries the same, as the introduction of BuJo (or similar)?

The reason I’m wanting to know how you do this, is that I started out using mostly tags for everything, but after a while I found that I did like to have some backlinks here and there. And I was also a little discouraged, that the graph view didn’t show all notes related to a tag in current notes.

But after switching to links, I found that most of the links don’t actually mean anything to me, that is, I don’t really need to see a 100 or more backlinks for whenever I did a workout, or that I wrote a journal entry, and so on.

I’m contemplating on maybe re-introducing more tags now, and possibly use links related to the concept and change of concept, and tags when just using/executing the concept. What is your approach?

1 Like

When it comes to journaling, I suggest you follow what works the best according to your current intentions. Obsidian is a versatile tool. It minimizes the effort between coming up with a concept and executing it. Whenever I look back to the daily notes I made a year ago, I almost don’t recognize the format. That’s how much they’ve changed :grimacing:

In your case, my suggestion is to introduce “Versions” in some of your notes. That way, whenever you want to update your workout scheme, you could link the daily note (as the day the update took place) inside [[WorkOut]] and discuss the reasons behind it in the daily note itself. The old workout scheme could either be deleted or put inside a callout for archival purposes.

Interesting idea to introduce versions, which I will consider. However, my main focus is in all the other notes. How should I differentiate, if at all, between doing something, or applying something when it comes to using links or tags or … to something like WorkOut.

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by that. Could you elaborate a bit more?

The thing is that if I use links every time I execute the WorkOut (or any other concept), the backlinks for WorkOut would be extremely crowded, and make it harder to see how it developed into that particular version.

A similar case could be raised with persons, that if you blatantly link every time you mention a person, it would be hard to select the more crucial/definite encounters/happenings with that person. So how could you both keep references to a person, but at the same time differentiate between trivial encounters and somewhat more substantial encounters?

Do you use tags, links, unlinked mentions, or maybe even multiple notes for the same topic/person? (Like “WorkOut concept” or similar)

The direction of your linking could imply the importance. For example, I’ve met [[Alex]] for the last three days. Each day, I’ve mentioned our meeting in my daily notes. However, our third meeting has been longer and more fruitful than the rest, so I don’t want it to be lost in the heap of my daily notes.

That’s when I move/copy that specific meeting note over to [[Alex]], and link it to the day our meeting took place. That makes the note stand out, while keeping it’s connection to the day it took place.

In short:

  • Concept → Daily Note (Important)
  • Daily Note → Concept (Trivial, not as important)

For similar reasons I prefer use explicit manual linking rather than using Obsidian backlinking feature.

Making link myself allow me to describe, differentiate the role and weight of links

I don’t like uniformity of backlink list, most of the semantic of links is not expressed.