Maciej Smoła
Maciej Smoła
Yes. This is also what Andric refers to with
with Roam-style backlinks, there aren’t any annotated edges between pages that link to each other, but at least the unstructured text does that job of adding context
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 calciumThe 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
Solution! Multiple ways to conceive...
Node <----> Connection <----> Node
Node1 <----> Connection <----> Node2
Subject <----> Connection <----> Object
Subject <----> Predicate <----> Object
The connection/predicate would get the same treatment as a node, except perhaps it would be have a special property highlighting the contextual connection between 2 other nodes. Essentially they would be hybrids between fields, properties, and nodes.
If the user can define the connection/predicate node, or an AI suggests it — why wouldn't your example generalize?
Obviously different spheres of knowledge would require different connection/predicate types, and there would be some work needed by the user/AI to define them.
But I think this is what power PKM users are asking for. Just give us the tools to build every type of connection between nodes that is possible, even if it requires work, and I will do it.
For example, in the nutrient/symptom example you gave, we might see a rise of ontological "tag" templates. the realm you are talking about is health. So perhaps all nodes related to health will follow the same or similar higher level ontological structure. Users can define their frameworks or can borrow from a community library of "tag" frameworks.
On the high level, a health framework would contain terms like {symptoms, treatments, nutrients, psychological, physiological, nervous system, digestive system, allopathic, ayurvedic...}. On the lower level, we would have the specific types, kinds, names of these higher level things {vitamin d, estrogen, spleen, runny nose, acupuncture, stem cell therapy, back fusion surgery...}.
An example of a connection/predicate node set might include members such as {caused by (x thing), symptom of (x illness), organ of (x system), treatment type of (x health/medical philosophy), treatment type for (x set of symptoms)...}
Again, users can generate their own frameworks and degree of hierarchy or can borrow from a community sharing of frameworks that makes sense given a certain domain (eg health).