I understand that the prototype part of the note does not duplicate in relation to the prototype settings. So, I have to change some identifying feature of the note to make a new prototype. I also have to check off generals/searchable and generals/bequeathchild… in the get info box. I forgot to say that. I think you are saying that there is no point in copying a prototype because anyway all of the parameters need to be reset anyway. If I am talking about a column, than this may not be true.
Since I am actually talking about a column that shares some aspect of each element within it, then copying makes sense to me.
I am talking about a table because that is the actual arrangement of my data. You understand that the terms are biology, so you made my project into a genealogy, but the need I have is to keep track of clinical evidence. A strict genealogy will be insufficient. The table uses genealogical information, but the layout of the items used to track the information is not a genealogy in the strict sense that you are referring to. The already thought out form for this data is a table. I am not making this up as I go. It is a system that already exists. I want to set up the prototype and then use it to make relevant notes easy to collate.
(One note could easily refer to several prototypes. I have a feeling that this is not how a prototype is used. If my feeling is true, then we should stop talking about prototypes. Or maybe I should think of notes as nested elements that are actually difficult to read in the map form, but maybe there is a easier way to read them. I am also thinking that I should keep my notes in Devon Think and use TBX as a way to collate them, but not as a way to read them.)
That is why I started asking about a table. The original information comes from a Linnaeus-type genealogy, but that is not the form that I am working with. That is why I am asking about rows and columns. But, your point is well taken. I should work with what we are both understanding. Still my question remains.
To make a prototype of a table, I think I am supposed to break my table into an outline of rows and columns. Any element (could be a plant or a mineral since both are used as medicines) could be found either within the rows, or within the columns. (That is my clinical data system not a genealogy). Plants are much more complicated than minerals, so they have more identifying elements (family, class, subclass). That means that within the same prototype container, I guess I would have two parts to the outline: the plant and mineral parts.
Furthermore, on the table system that I am using, Family, class, and subclass are not notes within notes. Each is like another smaller spreadsheet. That is the design is flat. They are within the same container as rows and column, but as identifying features, they are not notes within notes. (Remember other people who I work with, do not have TBX so they need a system that does not involve something as complicated as a genealogy to layout the data. Numbers are used to identify the categories just to decrease the verbal clutter. Also, to increase order. That is why and how a spreadsheet is used. It is a flat design and not nested) In the system that I am using, minerals and plants are based on the same spreadsheet format. I think you are saying that I would need to redo the same process of making columns and rows of the plant and mineral spreadsheets. I could not copy the mineral spreadsheet and add the complexity of the plant spreadsheet. But, in the clinical evidence chart, the columns and rows of the element are copied in fact. Physically it is difficult to place plants and minerals on the same printed page, but conceptually, for the system that I am using, they are ¨in¨ the same spreadsheet.
Other factors such as cause of disease are integrated too.
In short, totally separating the plant and mineral elements is not ideal for my project because often what I am trying to see is the relationship between plants and minerals. I really want the elements of the mineral that are the same as those in the arrangement of the clinical data about plants to use the same prototypes. (Those aspects that refer to columns and row.) I do not understand why I could not do that. The plants would need other elements that would be evident in the outline of their spreadsheet, but the column and row aspects should be re-used, at least conceptually. That is I would refer to the columns and row prototypes that are al ready available in the spreadsheet for the minerals. That would be less work, but more important, more useful for me because it is the original design used to store this clinical data. That is it is the actual design of the system that I am using. It is not conjecture in the sense that I am planning to discover it. Is this impossible in TBX? I am not asking you to do the work for me. I am asking if the concept is possible.
Sorry to be so inflexible and apparently stubborn, but I actually have something that I want to do in TBX. If what I want to do is not possible, then probably I should not try to use TBX.
It is early morning in Japan. There is plenty of time to work on the computer and walk in nature. Today it will rain, but the birds are singing anyway. Hope your work is going well.