@Tones I am struggling to understand exactly what you are suggesting. Are you saying that to imitate Soren's example of [[Alice!mention]], you would create a link to a totally unique tiddler, say [[1234]], then tag that tiddler with "mention", then link from that tiddler to [[Alice]]? So you would have a kind of proxy tiddler that represents the "type" of link? On Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 20:42:33 UTC TW Tones wrote:
> Soren, > > A Quick answer is to create tiddler for the relationship between two > tiddlers, link to that relationship, which subsequently links to the > related tiddler. Once the relationship tiddler exists exists it is simply a > matter of tagging it with Mention or "relationship". The relationship > tiddler can be numerically named. > > Alternatively to making generic relationships and tagging them "mention" > you could make specific relationships tiddlers eg mentions. > > Regards > Tones > > On Sunday, 28 February 2021 at 06:32:13 UTC+11 Soren Bjornstad wrote: > >> Occasionally I find myself wishing I could include additional information >> with a link, often describing the exact relationship expressed by the link. >> A basic example would be, in a journal tiddler, I might link to a person >> and want to keep track of whether the person actually *participated* in >> the events being described, or was just *mentioned *in them. >> >> I imagine a syntax something like this: >> >> Mentioning [[Alice!mention]]. >> Or [[a person|Alice!mention]]. >> >> Another sensible choice could be to expose this functionality only >> through the <$link> widget, so that no new syntax would need to be >> introduced. >> >> You would then be able to filter on this metadata through a suffix of the >> links[] or backlinks[] operator, e.g., the filter >> "[[Alice]backlinks:mention[]]" could return only those links to Alice that >> are of the *mention* type. Perhaps something like >> "[linktype[LinkingTiddler],[Alice]]" to retrieve the type value as well >> (could have multiple values if there are multiple links of different types). >> >> I don't think there is anything you would be able to do with this that >> you can't do with fields, but I think in quite a few cases this would be a >> more convenient syntax. Another advantage in some cases is that the >> metadata would automatically come along with excisions and copy-paste. >> >> Does this sound interesting to anyone else? Practical? >> > -- 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/d4c5b87f-2ae4-4f72-83d6-426f75accc69n%40googlegroups.com.
