{
  "path": "/3mhsm3pal5c2m",
  "site": "at://did:plc:7zc3njy7dhotg5gleozmxqnp/site.standard.publication/3m7gr2dccns2y",
  "tags": [
    "technology"
  ],
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "title": "initial thoughts on zettelkasten",
  "content": {
    "$type": "pub.leaflet.content",
    "pages": [
      {
        "id": "019d1fde-1ce3-733b-b128-dc51eab34a19",
        "$type": "pub.leaflet.pages.linearDocument",
        "blocks": [
          {
            "$type": "pub.leaflet.pages.linearDocument#block",
            "block": {
              "$type": "pub.leaflet.blocks.text",
              "facets": [
                {
                  "index": {
                    "byteEnd": 13,
                    "byteStart": 10
                  },
                  "features": [
                    {
                      "$type": "pub.leaflet.richtext.facet#italic"
                    }
                  ]
                },
                {
                  "index": {
                    "byteEnd": 220,
                    "byteStart": 181
                  },
                  "features": [
                    {
                      "uri": "https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/",
                      "$type": "pub.leaflet.richtext.facet#link"
                    }
                  ]
                }
              ],
              "plaintext": "Seemingly the contemporary advice for running a zettelkasten notes system involves hyperlinking (reasonable, sensible), but to do so with extended markdown through wikilinks. (See: Introduction to the Zettelkasten Method.) The go-to program to manage all of this is, it seems, Obsidian. There's nothing wrong with any of this, though I am hesitant to move away from CommonMark and I am (slightly) hesitant to rely on Obsidian for my organization. I also don't think it's necessary to use a different file browser from what's already on my computer: Obsidian really does little for me that Finder itself can't do."
            }
          },
          {
            "$type": "pub.leaflet.pages.linearDocument#block",
            "block": {
              "$type": "pub.leaflet.blocks.text",
              "plaintext": "On the opposite side, this seems like a perfect use for Finder's tag system, however, those tags are only useful within Finder and macOS, so there's another interoperability issue. Although this is a minor issue since tags should first exist inside any note."
            }
          },
          {
            "$type": "pub.leaflet.pages.linearDocument#block",
            "block": {
              "$type": "pub.leaflet.blocks.text",
              "plaintext": "I do like the idea of using a BibTeX file for any references, especially now understanding that it is a flat file database."
            }
          },
          {
            "$type": "pub.leaflet.pages.linearDocument#block",
            "block": {
              "$type": "pub.leaflet.blocks.text",
              "plaintext": "So, I think I will use a simple \"Notes\" folder in finder with MD files as just a single level to collect notes. I like the idea of a unique identifier, but I'd rather use something simple and more readable than a date/time string. I think the file should also have a very brief but descriptive name. An \"Index\" file can act as an index. Eventually, there'll need to be some organization, but I think new sub-folders can be made as necessary as the body of notes grows and demands them. There won't be hyperlinks between files, but they will continue the human-readable references so they can be easy to find. (Sub-folders could take a simpler identifier, too, I think.)"
            }
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreie5lteie3m6ctgbngfwz3bdg5j5c73jeshmg36e5u2goepi4djeam"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/webp",
    "size": 437556
  },
  "description": "to zettel or not to zettel",
  "publishedAt": "2025-11-28T21:05:00.000Z"
}