20180114181843 Taxonomy of Notes

tags: #notetaking


Types of notes:

Not all these go into the ZK. Template and Logs should stay out. Collections and Lists probably also don’t need to be in the ZK, although I don’t see why they couldn’t.

Types of Notes Coming from Reference Sources


I want to distinguish notes that are commenting on a source and those that are my original ideas.

For the latter, I have the tag


For individual zettels

For each paper, I want to make one summary note that compiles all the individual zettels from a paper and also let’s me write my thoughts. It would be nice to have a single summary. Also, in this way, I can add tags to the summary that let’s me essentially tag papers without having to tag the original PDF.

How do I identify the source? Well, each note should have a citekey. I think the citekey can be the identifier.


Depending on the type of book, similar types can be used.

For #overview notes from books, types include:

Similar to papers, I want one summary note for a book that essentially becomes an outline of the book, but comprised of modular zettels.

For many books, what I really want are the action points. I want actionable knowledge. I care about the source and the evidence, but truly I just want to key points.

Those key points will then go into a checklist-style cheat sheet that I can use to template my own actions.

Thus, when I’m making notes, I don’t need to copy everything verbatim. Perhaps it’s useful to get the original zettels with their quote, but I want my summary. I need breadcrumbs to the details.

For example, if I’m taking code notes, I don’t need to copy all the detail. I really need the entry points back to the detail. The details are all over many resources (PDFs, ebooks, websites,etc.). What I need is a meta-document that tells me where to get the details.

Recent additions (2019)

External information

Internally generated