A potential concern for the way DT3 is removing annotation note?

In DT2, a user only needs to clear the URL field of the source file to remove the linked annotation note, BUT the annotation note will remain in the same location.
In DT3, once a user selects “Remove” in the “Reminder and Annotation” pane, the linked annotation note is moved to the trash of DT3.
Perhaps it’s more prudent to consider the removed note to be remained in the “Annotations” group?
e.g. User may hit remove accidentally, user may take different notes on the same article for different project at different periods but want to keep the previous notes, user may want to do a fresh review of the article but wanting to keep the previous note as reference.

Perhaps it’s more prudent to consider the removed note to be remained in the “Annotations” group?

This has the potential for leaving a bunch of disconnected files in the Annotations.

Let’s see what others think about this.

I think so. The story has two sides.

1 Like

@ngan just to make sure I understand what you’re saying, the concern is: why isn’t there a way to delink or unlink the annotation file in DT3 versus “Remove”, which unlinks and trashes the note?

I think I get what you’re saying. Currently, there is only one annotation file allowed per document using the inspector annotation feature. This means that if you want to start a new annotation file, the only way is to “Remove” the current annotation, which also trashes it. With the DT2 method, you could generate multiple annotations by manually removing the URL from the file being annotated and run the annotation template again.

I also think that @BLUEFROG has a good point. Unlinking the annotation would mean that the bi-directional referencing between the annotation and the file being annotated is severed. If the annotation still pertains to the file being annotated, it would seem prudent to preserve the bi-directional reference. Otherwise, there would be a build up of semi-orphaned files.

  1. As it currently stands, the “Remove” function completely cleans the annotated document of the annotation file. This allows for a new annotation to be created.
    1a. Those who use the annotation for a fleeting note, rather than a permanent note, might find this to be a very useful feature.
    1b. [quote=“ngan, post:1, topic:48551”]
    User may hit remove accidentally
    [/quote] This is a good point. I think it can be addressed fairly easily. Either, when you click remove there is a secondary prompt that asks you to confirm (similar to when a database is deleted). OR because the annotation file is moved to the trash, but still linked to the annotated document, the “Remove” function should change to “Restore” function. That way a user could go into the trash and restore the note that was accidentally or otherwise removed.
    1b1. The issue with restore is, what if the user has created a new annotation in the meantime? How can one retain both annotations?

  2. I think what we might be looking at here is the need for a feature or function called annotation stack.
    2a. Annotation Stack would allow for a subfolder to be created in the Annotations group that is titled something like " ‘annotated file name’ stack".
    2b. This would allow the user to generate multiple bi-directionally linked annotation files for any given document while keeping all of those files organized in the subgroup.

  3. This raises a further question: how would the inspector Annotations feature be modified to accommodate the Annotation Stack?
    3a. By default it displays the most recent annotation or last accessed annotation.
    3b. It also includes an option to View Annotation Stack or View All Annotations, which would allow the user to select which of the multiple annotations they want to view. OR this would reveal the Annotation Stack/subfolder where the user could then see all the annotation files.

This is basically what I have in my Zotero workflow. For a given bibliographic entry, I have multiple annotations (Zotero calls them “Notes”) that build up for each file. Each of the annotations serve slightly different purposes, and it is much more efficient to view them as separate Notes rather than have all that text in a single file.
And when some notes - the fleeting ones - serve their purpose, I can trash this information, while retaining the permanent Note/annotation.
In Zotero’s version of the inspector (right sidebar) I can see and manage all these additional notes that pertain to the selected bibliographic entry.

@ngan What do you think about all of this? Perhaps what we’re looking at here is expanding the Annotation feature, rather than necessarily a problem with the “Remove” function itself?

There are actually simple and very sophisticated solution (available, but need more consideration in applying to ur case):

(1) A friendly reminder in help regarding the consequence of “remove”, that user can still find the deleted note in trash.
(2) The stack might be easier/ready to implement than you think. Build another tag tree (or tag group to ur liking), setup each tag/tag group to represent one document. Whatever notes/versions of note from the same annotated document can be replicated into the revenant group. So a replicant of the complete stack of notes from one single document is located in the same place and tagged for quick reference. Kind of similar to what the OP on a bookend script does BUT this one is in manual mode.

There is an automatic solution in which @korm said it’s the best he has ever seen in DT forum Make an Annotation with Links, Notes, Tags v2 and Annotation Pane (Annotation with Links, Notes, Tags v3).
(1) The concept of this solution can definitely apply to your idea/s - if not more. But it will take a bit of time to understand the versatility of these two script packages. The solution can even be used in basic qualitative analysis (for those DT users who are not fear of experimenting with scripting).
(2) IMHO: the script v2 has more flexibility than v3 in allowing users to shape/modify its original intended purpose (I am referring to the version of the above-mentioned script, not DT!).
(3) Given the latest features update and the enrichment of AppleScript library of DT3, I can see that there are many room for modification of V2/V3 of this script to tailor for some specific/advance usage (although probably less for my purpose).

Just my 5 cents

1 Like

(1) A friendly reminder in help regarding the consequence of “remove”, that user can still find the deleted note in trash.

There is already a mention of this in the Help, but I’ve corrected a link in the comment.

Got it, thanks. It’s actually not a big deal for new user coz “remove” will normally means “trash”. For DT2 users, we may think “remove” is “remove the link” and it’s trickier to check coz the note is not next to the annotated document… (at least for me, initially)