Dousa, Thomas M. “Facts and Frameworks in Paul Otlet’s and Julius Otto Kaiser’s Theories of Knowledge Organization.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 36, no. 2 (2010): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2010.1720360208.

In this respect Otlet was closer to the philosophy of organization used by Niklas Luhmann.

Some of the structure in Kaiser's system was built into relationships on guide cards. While not exactly hub notes, they did provide links to other areas of the system in addition to synonyms under which materials could be found including broader terms, narrower terms, and related terms often seen in library information systems.

Compare the various organizational structures of Otlet, Kaiser, and Luhmann.

Seemingly their structures were dictated by the number of users and to some extent the memory of those users with respect to where to find various things.

Otlet as a multi-user system with no single control mechanism or person, other than the decimal organizing standard (in his case a preference for UDC), was easily flexible for larger groups. Kaiser's system was generally designed, built and managed by one person but intended for use by potentially larger numbers of people. He also advised a conservative number of indexing levels geared toward particular use-cases (that is a limited number of heading types or columns/rows from a database perspective.) Finally, Luhmann's was designed and built for use by a single person who would have a more intimate memory of a more idiosyncratic system.

This is the reasoning for why we'll want an indexed system. The vast wealth of information may be overwhelming, but with the ability to organize and control it (by writing it down and indexing it) we can turn it into something useful.

compare with scrap heaps or even the method of Eminem's zettelkasten (Eminem's gloryhole ???). rofl...

In addition to his card index, Martin Luther King, Jr. compiled a collection of 166 folders organized around various topics which he used to organize outlines, clippings, pages from books, and other source materials as well as drafts of sermons or speeches on those topics.

To some extent these folders are just larger format repositories mirroring the topical arrangements of his card index.

In this interview, Lumnann indicates that he learned a number of organizational tricks while studying law.

What specifically were these? Relation to his ZK?

Any relation to Bruno First's memory work which grew out of his legal studies in the early 1900s?

Starting a zettelkasten practice with a table of contents as the primary organization is difficult due to planning in advance.

Anecdotal evidence that categorizing and arranging index cards/ideas for a writing project for subsequent writing is one of the most difficult portions of the process.

Niklas Luhmann subverted portions of this by pre-linking his ideas together either in threads or an outline form as he went.

Again he uses the idea of a "file" which I read and understand as similar to the concepts of zettelkasten or commonplace book. Unlike others writing about these concepts though, he seems to be taking a more holistic and integrative (life) approach to having and maintaining such system.

Perhaps a more extreme statement of this might be written as "zettelkasten is life" or the even more extreme "life is zettelkasten"?

Is his grounding in sociology responsible for framing it as a "social organization" of one's memory?

It's not explicit, but this statement could be used as underpinning or informing the idea of using a card index as autobiography.

How does this compare to other examples of this as a function?

Risks of replicating physical attributes in digital systems

This article makes so much sense, but this sentence more than any other. As librarians will will know, a physical book can only be put in one place on a shelf...you can't realistically replicate a book and put it in groupings with all like-minded books. The call number was invented to bring organization to the physical space and the card catalog was invented to have a way for representations of the books—cards!—interfiled in many places to help with finding the book. Luhmann's card numbering sequence was the first thing I dropped when reading about Zettelkasten, and those that insist on that mechanism for their digital slip boxes are artificially constraining their electronic systems with a physical world limitation.

Organize for actionability.

(Applicable only for P.A.R.A.?)

This is interesting for general project management, but potentially not for zettelkasten-type notes. That method has more flexibility that doesn't require this sort of organizational method and actually excels as a result of it.

There is a tension here.

Notes primarily for project-based productivity are different from notes for writing-based output.

https://herbertlui.net/8-lessons-from-800-note-cards-in-the-zettelkasten

A writer with over 800 note cards positively describes some of his experience in using the zettelkasten note taking system.

Now that we're digitizing the Zettelkasten we often find dated notes that say things like "note 60,7B3 is missing". This note replaces the original note at this position. We often find that the original note is maybe only 20, 30 notes away, put back in the wrong position. But Luhmann did not start looking, because where should he look? How far would he have to go to maybe find it again? So, instead he adds the "note is missing"-note. Should he bump into the original note by chance, then he could put it back in its original position. Or else, not.

Niklas Luhmann had a simple way of dealing with lost cards by creating empty replacements which could be swapped out if found later. It's not too dissimilar to doing inventory in a book store where mischievous customers pick up books, move them, or even hide them sections away. Going through occasionally or even regularly or systematically would eventually find lost/misfiled cards unless they were removed entirely from the system (similar to stolen books).