[dunham]

> From a slightly pedantic point of view that misses the point of cooking or baking, I disagree about the ability to re-use nodes.

For example, if you make the "Lobster, Poached with Shellfish, Pear, and Kale" from the 11-madison park cookbook, you will make a "white balsamic vinaigrette" which is then used directly to make the "Pear Glaze", "Pickled Mustard Seeds", and "Pear marmalade" components. (The pickled mustard seeds also go into the "Pear marmalade" component.)

[RandallBrown]

> if you make the "Lobster, Poached with Shellfish, Pear, and Kale" from the 11-madison park cookbook, you will make a "white balsamic vinaigrette"

I think the post you're replying to is saying that you'll make 3 "white balsamic vinaigrettes" instead of reusing the same one 3 times.

Which makes sense since one step of the recipe will be to divide the vinaigrette into 3 amounts to make the other ingredients.

[eru]

No, you make a larger amount of liquid, and then you divide it.

You'd only have one node. Just like you don't put every bite of food into its own node.

[ulbu]

you can divide it into multiple containers, where they become multiple objects, each participating in a different (sub)recipe. node as use of unit-item, not the physical bunch of item itself. instance, not type.

[eru]

Depending on what you want to model, either view can make sense.