Thread by @brandontoner

Ok, so here’s a really good example on how I get hung up on *language* specificity…

In exploring @obsdmd’s LYT Kit (which I love), I noticed their MOC notation (Map of Concepts).

BUT — Are all the maps they are mapping really of *concepts*??

See image

Examples:

Interest MOC = a map of INTEREST
People MOC = a map of PEOPLE
Projects MOC = a map of PROJECTS

These are *maps* but no longer maps of *concepts*

But then my inside voice goes:

Me: “But you get the point… stop nitpicking”

Me: “It’s important. I’m not nitpicking. Language matters”

Me: “Yes, language matters, but this is just notation that identifies the main maps of things — a personal directory”

Me: “Yes, but not a directory of *concepts* — its broader then that!”

Me: “OK, come up with something more appropriate then”

Me: “OK, fine”

*present time*

MOC is great — but should be reserved for maps of *concepts* or *ideas*.

For the rest of the list, drop the MOC?

In my opinion, my "People MOC” should be a map of my ideas *about* people and my ideas about relationships and managing them

— NOT a map *of* people.

Really, these all could be labeled simply as map (Map of People), but then you lose the fun acronym 😂

I’d say the 000 notation is sufficient for establishing it’s centrality — so do that, and then have a Map of Maps (MOM) to bring it *all* together. And MOCs for concepts.

🤷‍♂️