[Chris]

Originally Posted by pvonk

You parent-child relationship seems backwards from most/all GTD implementations I've seen. An action (or the project itself) that is dependent of one or more other actions is usually listed above the other actions.

I don't understand; in sequential projects in OF, the order is as I have it; actions that must be done first are at the top.

Your theory implies each action is only dependent on one immediate (previous) action. If you have to perform A, B, and C (in any order) before Z, can you explain how your tree structure would be defined?

You're right, my model doesn't capture this sort of dependency. But neither does the current model.

Also, I'm not sure I follow your "only parallel projects" idea. If I have to do A, then B, then C, your tree would look like:

A
>B
>>C

Yes.

But the problem (as I mentioned above) is what if A or B can be done in any order and C done last. By your definition, A and B would be at the same level. Where do you put C?

That's right, my model allows multiple children, but not multiple parents. You'd have to make C be a child of either A or B.