Familiar to Discourse Graph users

Downside, it would be harder to add inline CSS for links like Discourse Graph does

Users may prefer to use semantic complements like in Discourse Graph (supports and supported by)

For one, a non-restrictive grammar allows users to not have to create prefix links in the front of every linked note like in Discourse Graph. This will be beneficial for use cases that want to connect a large volume of notes in their knowledge graph but don’t want to be restricted to a specific note naming system.

This is a generalized knowledge graph proposal based off of the work on Discourse Graph by Joel Chan and David Vargas, so thank you to them. Other inspiration is listed in: # Resources

Discourse Graph

Discourse Graph

e.g. Discourse Graph, or Semantic triples

for example, a general ontology may be like Joel Chan’s Discourse Graph (types: question, claim, evidence, etc.. relationships: supports, opposes, informs, etc)