Tags and metadata serve as ways to differentiate certain relationships, but so much of the meaning of the relationship lives in the language of the notes. So I wanted to create a system that can live in the content of the notes, instead of either in the structure of the database or in the metadata. These relationships and discourse between notes are really the data that matters, after all. They should not be relegated to metadata.
I’ve fallen into the trap before of trying to put too many of my note relationships into the metadata, but this is treating a note taking tool like a database. Relationships are often discovered in the note-writing process, and just because they live organically in your notes does not mean they shouldn’t also be clear about what type of relationship they are and be easily queryable. It just requires a tightening up of the language that we use every day.
The hope is that this will help my note taking become a more clear, sustainable, synthesis encouraging, and transferrable form of knowledge, at least for me.
There is a nod here to Category Theory. I’m not yet sure what to make of it, but I have a desire to make a note-taking language that can essentially be the language of Category Theory. If ever achieved, then, in theory, anything that can be represented by a Category can be represented as Knowledge graph of notes.
Similarly to the Category Theory relationship, in the back of my head I think of this as a Functional language for writing.
There is a nod here to Category Theory. I’m not yet sure what to make of it, but I have a desire to make a note-taking language that can essentially be the language of Category Theory. If ever achieved, then, in theory, anything that can be represented by a Category can be represented as Knowledge graph of notes.
Similarly to the Category Theory relationship, in the back of my head I think of this as a Functional language for writing.
The edges here are specified for clarity, but really any note can be an edge. The arrow -> simply specifies that there is a way to get from the note at the start of the arrow to the note at the end of the arrow (plus some minimal syntactic sugar to allow for dropping an arrow when it’s implied).
This of course means that you can also have arrows from “edges” to “edges”, but not sure that most note repositories will find that useful. Nonetheless, another nod to Category Theory by adding a way to sort of create functors.
This of course means that you can also have arrows from “edges” to “edges”, but not sure that most note repositories will find that useful. Nonetheless, another nod to Category Theory by adding a way to sort of create functors.
There is almost certainly a better way to represent functions between notes in this Category Theory representation (is it just Haskell?), but I thought I’d put this attempt to the test for a while.
There is almost certainly a better way to represent functions between notes in this Category Theory representation (is it just Haskell?), but I thought I’d put this attempt to the test for a while.