That is a really good option.
```
title: !mentioned
<$link to={{!!title}}><$text text={{!!title}}/> <$transclude
field="mentioned"/></$link>
```
```
title: Alice
mentioned: says HI!
Alice is from Alter-space.
```
```
title: Bob
Bob says hi to Alice, so "{{Alice||!mentioned}}"
```
Unfortunately, this does not generate a "backlink" reference because we are
using a {{transclusion||template}} to generate the final link widget...
https://tiddlywiki.com/#Hard%20and%20Soft%20Links
A link is soft if it is:
...
- generated by a link widget whose to attribute is a transclusion, macro
or variable
Best,
Joshua Fontany
On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-8 si wrote:
> @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/c1572893-77c3-4f0d-aebb-2f6c84a6f938n%40googlegroups.com.
