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...
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).
You don't have permission to do this.
You're going a bit too fast! Take a break and try again in a moment.
Something went wrong! Please reload the page and try again.
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).