HC, I would just make a couple of points -
Titles, in camel case or [[square brackets]] are fully operational links as you know, to just a title is enough to have a link. Recently auto linking tiddler titles found in text was discussed and implemented. This allows auto linking. So any field like tags can hold one or more titles and each of these can automatically be a link. I would suggest trying to keep the linking focused around tiddler titles. Have you seen marios parent TOC, called TOCP? which sets up a hierarchy based on the parent field rather than tags. It has a new here (with Parent) You can do the same thing with any field. Tiddlywiki has the features that you can build any network or hierarchy you want, in fact multiple hierarchies at the same time. I am trying to find a single relationship model tiddlywiki can not represent and have not yet. This includes maintaining "referential integrity" using out of the box tags, or building your own. This allows a change in one node without it loosing its relationships. I hope this contributes to your thoughts on this issue. Regards Tony On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:24:19 AM UTC+11, HC Haase wrote: > > > This is inspired from my thread on tag picker slowdown > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/TiddlyWiki/Lax5pGtwVT4> and > Dave's thread on bi-directional linking > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/TiddlyWiki/bi-directional%7Csort:date/tiddlywiki/LUVTps01UBU/rwQW8-_HFQAJ>. > > From these discussions on the TW tech and user behaviour with relations, I > think it could be useful to have a more fundamental discussion about > relations (tags and links). > > > Different folks different strokes, is a good thing to remember when > talking TW. I will do my best to remember that not all, do things the same > way as I. But sometime I might forget. > > I will approach this from my own point of view. This is not to say that > this is the right way to do referencing, but is an attempt to get some > clarity by starting at one point. > > In terms of relations between tiddlers we have > > 1. tags: can be hierarchies as in the TOC, and more network oriented. > It gives us categories > 2. links: is a stronger relation that tags, it gives us a direct > connection to another tiddler. > 3. backlinks: are also links, but not as intentional as normal links, > thus these could bring some emergence and show connection you forgot. > 4. list > 5. listed > 6. searches (and bimlas forward linking > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/TiddlyWiki/forward$20linking%7Csort:relevance/tiddlywiki/2XxI2apw6e4/8E7AJAszBwAJ> > > thing) > > > I don't see list and listed as too relevant right now, so I will leave > them out for now. > > > The way I see it tags and links are different. Links are more direct and > intentional - a strong relation if you will. Tags are a broader categories > (and/or hierarchical). This also means that tags become my primary > mechanism for order and links get a more ad hoc use. I had the feeling that > this is the way tags and links were designed/thought to be used (but I > could be wrong). > > So in summery > > > - tags > - hierarchy > - category/keyword > - primary sorter > - many out of the box features (toc macro, tagging filter, colour > coding, drop-down picker) > - don't pollute the text space > - links > - stronger link > - more ad hoc > - secondary sorter > - not (out of the box) optimal for hierarchies > - may pollute the text space > > > > Some people rely more on links instead of tags and some more on fields > (other than tag). This puzzled me a bit. But if you make some lists that > show nested list of links, to show hierarchy, you could use links for the > same as tags (e.g. Dave's blink edition > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/TiddlyWiki/bi-directional%7Csort:date/tiddlywiki/oWNZa3i4EoE/bQTVf_gqAAAJ>). > > SO maybe there are no real difference between tags and links? Can they be > used interchangeable? and if so why not only have one method? > > You link people; > > > - is there an advantage/disadvantage to using links for hierarchy? > - And how do you use links? do you have a "see also" section with > keyword links? > - do you distinguish between "a link to another tiddler" and "child of > tiddler link"? > > > Tags have many advantages that links do not have (out of the box) (toc > macro,tagging filter, colour coding, drop-down picker). but if we strip > them of these fancy cloths, are they any different than links? > > Maybe I am rambling now.. I properly managed to confuse myself. I look > forward to hearing your thoughts on this. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e4449142-ac19-48d8-b043-86af84ff2229%40googlegroups.com.
