Un-Linking ?

[igoldsmid]

Hi

Perhaps this has already been covered? When an item or items are linked - perhaps to several parents - what is the method of unlinking any item from one or more parents?

Thanks, IJG

[kinook]

Shift+Delete, or hold Shift Down while choosing Edit | Delete or right-click, Delete. Ctrl+Shift+Delete to delete an item (all links).

http://www.kinook.com/UR/Manual/?keyboarddataexplorerpane.htm

[igoldsmid]

hhhmmm thanks although when I looked at - http://www.kinook.com/UR/Manual/?keyboarddataexplorerpane.htm

the instruction:
Shift+Del:
Permanently delete the selected Info Items (and child Info Items if they are not linked)

is to permanently delete an info item....

what if i want to unlink an item from another without deleting anything other than the link?

[kevina]

When an Info Item is created, it is linked to one other Info Item (its parent). Deleting it (via hitting the Delete key or Edit | Delete from the menu) will delete it to the Recycle Bin. Deleting it while holding the Shift key will permanently delete it (not moved to the Recycle Bin but immediately removed).

If an Info Item is created, then linked to a second "parent" Info Item, it now has two parents (but only exists once). This is what is defined as Logical Linking, which allows you to relate Info Items together in multiple ways but without redundant copies of the same information. Each "instance" of the multi-linked Info Item functions will have a "linked" icon overlay and will have the same children in every location in the Data Explorer.

If you delete one "instance" of a multi-linked Info Item, this link will be re-parented to the Recycle Bin. If you permanently delete (using Shift+Delete) the "instance" then this link to the Info Item is permanently deleted, similar to the above singly linked example. If the remaining "instance" of the Info Item now only has one parent, then the icon overlay is removed and again a regular singly-linked Info Item.

As mentioned earlier by kinook, if you use Ctrl+Shift+Del, then all "instances" of the Info Item (and all its children) will be permanently deleted from the Info Database.

Note: even permanent deletions can be undone with Undo until the Ultra Recall application is closed.

I know that is a long answer to a short question, I hope the response clarifies how Logical Linking works and how you un-link an Info Item.

[igoldsmid]

Kevin - yes - i was being a bit "senior moment" for a while - I now understand again completely - thank you...

[intermagic]

Hi, I read this thread but I didn't get an answer to the main question: Is it possble to "unlink" a logical linking? This means: is it possible to delete the logical linking, but no one of the linked items? If not this could be a great feature for the next release, because I use logical linking very often for temporarly tasks and want to delete the linking after I done my tasks.

Thanks and bye

Ralf

[zargron]

Originally posted by intermagic
Hi, I read this thread but I didn't get an answer to the main question: Is it possble to "unlink" a logical linking? This means: is it possible to delete the logical linking, but no one of the linked items? If not this could be a great feature for the next release, because I use logical linking very often for temporarly tasks and want to delete the linking after I done my tasks.Firstly Ralf, convince yourself that unlinking in UR is not only "possible", but also a necessity for UR to call itself a (damn fine) outlining tool. Let's say you have a logically linked task as follows:
- Jim
-'-- «Phone to organise meeting

- Today
-'-- «Phone to organise meeting

> If you "delete" the task under Today, then it will remain under Jim.
> Furthermore, the task under Jim will appear to still be logically linked.
> The reason for that is because it IS still logically linked.
> It is logically linked to an item in the Recycle Bin.

The point that Kinook made in their post, was that if you use <Shift+Delete>, the task under Today will be removed, the task under Jim will remain, AND the logical link will disappear because you used the <Shift> key to override the default "delete to recycle bin" behaviour.

Try this for yourself in Windows Explorer. Highlighting a redundant file and pressing <Delete> will send the file to the recycle bin. Pressing <Shift+Delete> will permanently delete the file.

[intermagic]

Thanks, that's the solution!

Bye

Ralf

[StephenUK]

Zagron

That was a very helpful explanation of how to delete a clone and lose the link by not having the clone still sitting in the Recycle bin.

However, as regards what Igoldsmid asked

=====================
what if i want to unlink an item from another without deleting anything other than the link?
=====================

Would the answer to that question be to first permanently delete one of the two clones (eg Shift Delete) and then instead to create a "duplicate" using Paste / Duplicate?

Of course, that is rather a long winded, and maybe there is a shortcut for this.

Put another way, can a copy be changed by a single command into a duplicate?

[ashwken]

Stephen,

You've lost me...

Trying to think of a scenario where at one point you want two Items to be linked (one of the Items is a virtual copy), then later you don't (each Item to be unique or independent).

Logical Linking implies that you want to be able to update the Item at some point and have that update reflected across all (virtual) instances of the Item.

Help me wrap my mind around this.

[StephenUK]

Ashwken

I guess part of the question is what is the role of a duplicate rather than a copy.

An example, as I conceive it, is as follows: I have a yearly diary I have created in UR, with a directory for each month, and sub-directories for each day of the month.

If I copy (clone) this, thereby creating a link between the two copies, then anything I put in one diary will be reproduced in the second copy of it and vice-versa. However, if I want one diary for one purpose and a different diary for another, I can merely duplicate the original diary and I then know that changes in one are not reproduced in the other.

Now, of course, one would probably create the second diary using the copy/duplicate command, or by creating a template. But in a situation where one had inadvertently created a copy (ie clone) rather than a duplicate, it is useful to know how to get rid of the link so as to turn the clone into a mere duplicate.

So I think the question of how to get rid of links is a good one.

=========

As an aside, I would say that there would be less confusion if copying was described as cloning, and duplicating described as copying.

=========

As a further aside, I think it would be useful if copies in the recycle bin automatically lost their linking capability. I often find it irritating that a link persists despite a deletion, until I remember the link is to the recycle bin. If one has to get into the habit of always permanently deleting things, the befefit of the recycle bin becomes partly lost.

[zargron]

Good comments Stephen & Ashwken.

Unlinking (Break Logical Link)
I like the idea of an "Unlink" facility as well. There have been a few times where I've done <Ctrl+C> <Ctrl+V> <+> <Down> <Ctrl+Shift+Left> <Up> <Delete> to unlink an individual item. (Drop off the last two keystrokes and that's how I usually duplicate an individual item anyway.)

However, I agree with the direction of your sentiment Ashwken regarding how frequently it would get used. Actually, I get the feeling that the time you need it most is when you are learning UR. While trying to get your head around concepts like copy, paste, link, duplicate, delete, recycle bin you create "logical links" you simply want to break. Figuring out how to do it takes you yet another "awkward" step of learning. I suggest that once the initial (steep) learning curve is over, most users would find themselves in a position where they rarely need it. If you do want to break a logical link - there's a way of doing. (:cool: Subtle hint for title of facility if introduced.)By Stephen
As an aside, I would say that there would be less confusion if copying was described as cloning, and duplicating described as copying.Good comments Stephen. The word Copy was hijacked long long ago into "Copy, Cut, Paste" land. Copy & Cut obviously flag a selection. The focus of our attention should be leaving those words alone and finding alternative "action" words. Interestingly enough, Duplicate Single is mentioned in my UR help file (Navigation: Using Ultra Recall > Capturing Information > Capturing Info with Copy And Paste), however Copy Single appears in the program.By Stephen
As a further aside, I think it would be useful if copies in the recycle bin automatically lost their linking capability. I often find it irritating that a link persists despite a deletion, until I remember the link is to the recycle bin. If one has to get into the habit of always permanently deleting things, the befefit of the recycle bin becomes partly lost. Yes, yes and yes. However, for a variety of reasons I propose that only visualisation of the logical link be changed. In other words, behind the scenes data management continues to operate in exactly the same manner as it does now. The ONLY change being with rendering of the tree. When an item is being checked for logical links, it is only considered when outside the recycle bin. This avoids Kinook from the scary prospect of breaking into existing polished data manipulation code and should automatically resurrect a logical link should you bring the item back out of the recycle bin.

[ashwken]

Originally posted by StephenUK
But in a situation where one had inadvertently created a copy (ie clone) rather than a duplicate, it is useful to know how to get rid of the link so as to turn the clone into a mere duplicate.


OK, I see where you're coming from.

Aside:
Yes, some of the terminology inconsistencies are aggravating, there are times when I stop and wonder, "What does this function do, ...oh yeah".

Zargron:
Enjoy your insights.

[zargron]

Originally posted by StephenUK
But in a situation where one had inadvertently created a copy (ie clone) rather than a duplicate, it is useful to know how to get rid of the link so as to turn the clone into a mere duplicate.
Originally posted by Ashwken
OK, I see where you're coming from.Yes - well done - that's were I'd use it the most. It's "too" easy to create a logical link when you really meant to duplicate! Although one obviously gets better at avoiding it as the UR experience grows. If we had to make a choice? Focus attention on:
(a) tidying up ambiguities of the interface
|or|
(b) break logical link & hide recycle bin item links.

Hmm... I'd vote for (a). If done well, it would have immediate positive impact on all existing users. But even more importantly, it would be a big help to new users. It isn't a request for more functions. It is "simply" a request for changes in terminology - hopefully via feedback from a cross section of experienced & newbie users.Originally posted by Ashwken
Zargron: Enjoy your insights.Happy to oblige.

Have a nice day... :cool:

[StephenUK]

Agree completely with what both Ashwken and Zagron have just said.

If the ambiguities were tidied up (eg substitute "copy linked" / "copy unlinked") that would help a lot especially, as you rightly say, newbies (like myself).

Maybe a link to an item in the recycle bin could have a different icon, without undue coding. But I do agree, the ability to unlink becomes less important as you progress.

==========

As a complete aside and off subject, the one aspect I found most confusing with the interface was the Documents template. I automatically assumed that to create a document I should use it and yet I found I either CREATED items using text, task, folder etc, or IMPORTED items as Word docs, Excel docs and pdf. As such, the documents template made little sense to me. That is a small matter, but these type of issues do make the program rather inaccessible and in truth it deserves a far wider audience.