“Index” has a few definitions. The broad definition of an index is: Something that serves to guide, point out, or otherwise facilitate reference.
That’s the definition I subscribe to. A more narrow definition makes it an alphabetical list. (This is what we’re used to in a book.)
Narrow definitions feel solid, and solid feels good. But solid is rigid, and rigid is inflexible, so rigid can break with new stressors over time.
The broader definition of an Index allows for resilient fluid thinking that can adapt as needed, which I would argue makes for a more robust digital library of notes.
@Rishi Your Omnifocus “perspectives” analogy is a good one!
There is a lot of wiggle room for personal preferences here. To overly simplify, I’d say there are notes, and then notes about notes. For “notes about notes” MOCs are the most fluid. Eventually, I might have a specific project in mind, so I can duplicate that MOC and create a very specialized and linearly-ordered TOC. This is where @Rishi is onto something about the more final nature of TOCs and Indices.
Above everything, I have an Index note. Basically it’s my highest-level note. You could call it a Directory note. I prefer Index because of its Latin connection meaning “forefinger”. It’s not like an alphabetical index at the end of a book. Instead, it’s a high-level overview from the International Space Station, pointing down upon the rest of my world of notes, with portals to the whichever topics are deemed the biggest or gravitationally most important. I think that’s how @Meins is using it too.
