In reply to
Olli Tiainen
Olli Tiainen
May 4, 2023
Olli Tiainen
Olli Tiainen
In simple relationships, yes, such as:
Person (supertag) is a member of a Project (Field instance for Projects)
Project (supertag) has a Team member (Field instance for Persons)
But in more complex...
I see, so then we would be able to for example explain the mechanism of Vitamin D by describing the relation itself.
Have you seen that implemented in UI anywhere? Where should it go in the app like Tana? Curious to see if there are any which could be helpful for devs
Yes. This is also what Andric refers to with
The point here is that connections between supertags never contain any additional structured or unstructured information that explains the context.
I haven't seen any good UX for this - nor can I immediately imagine what a good simple solution could look like, especially in a bidirectional context. But here's what a bad and complex solution could look like that would do it's job in the context of this very narrow example - but it would probably hardly generalize:
The node "Osteoporosis #symptom" has a field "caused by" that would take multiple supertags + unstructured data as input
In the field, I would write
-- [Caused by] "Vitamin D #nutrient" deficiency because Vitamin D helps absorb calcium.
-- [Caused by] "Estrogen #hormone" reduction because Estrogen suppresses bone resorption.
The node "Vitamin D #nutrient" has a connected field "Effects". The field would automatically contain
-- [Effects] "Osteoporosis #symptom" caused by Vitamin D #nutrient" deficiency because Vitamin D helps absorb calcium
The node "Estrogen #hormone" has a connected field "effects". The field would automatically contain
-- [Effects] "Osteoporosis #symptom" caused by "Estrogen #hormone" reduction because Estrogen suppresses bone resorption