Josiah,
If your main concern is to represent trees containing two parents like any
genealogical tree it is already possible. It can be done with tags but much
more easily with an alternate field. I would be happy to explore this
further with you.
HTML lists are just that - one dimensional lists. But we can build our own
lists or structures,
Here is a quick illustration
- Joe and Jill are people, joe is male, Jill is female
- One day Joe and Jill become parents to chloe
- Chloe is thus tagged with Joe and Jill
- If you are looking at chloe you can search the tags on chloe
- for a person who is male and you find her father
- for a person who female and you find her mother
In the above case we interrogate an attribute of the tiddlers used to tag
Chloe, to determine more information and thus the relationship. The
relationship is identified.
If however Chloe is given additional fields like Mother and Father it will
work much better. In fact you can also add step parents and other
relationships. The relationship is defined in the name of the field, and
the contents make that relationship.
When building trees from such genealogical relationships Bimlas's Kin
operator is great here, and you can decide if you want a matrilineal or
patrilineal tree. You choose of its a tag or another field.
However it is important to recognise that a genealogical tree can stretch
to infinity and when generating a tree you may have to set constraints, eg
number of generations forward or back, or matrilineal or patrilineal tree.
I have already built macros that determine from a named person, their
siblings, brothers, parents and grand parents even cousins. Thanks to the
Kin filter is is easy because you can add/subtract the result of one or
more kin filters from one and another.
It is the beauty of TiddlyWiki that almost any data structure can be
modeled, and listed. Because of this "flat lists" or html lists will never
be adequate all the time.
Regards
Tony
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 8:07:54 AM UTC+10, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> Jeremy Ruston wrote:
>
>> I think there are many structures that are easy enough to hold in our
>> heads but actually very hard to render as a 2D snapshot of a graph. It
>> feels to me that progressive disclosure is required to “unroll” the
>> portions of a potentially infinite visualisation space that we want to
>> explore (much like the TOC). Thus, apprehending a complex structure cannot
>> be accomplished merely contemplating a picture, it requires interactive
>> exploration.
>>
>
> Totally agree.
>
> But assiting the user/explorer is an interesting issue. On the one hand
> we have great structuring principles that are basically, hierachical trees
> (lists in HTML) or more free form free text assembledge.
>
> * But in the middle, between them I hit issues. *
>
> For instance, I find it incredibly difficult to depict kinship correctly
> in TW (and most any other software too).
>
> The point about kinship is you have "objects" (people) and you have
> "relationships" (connections between them) and both need to figure in
> depiction, merged. Try it through tagging, lol. :-)
>
> Its a simple challenge case, I think, to illustrate the place where
> structure*S* merge. Its that merging to two levels of reality
> seamlessling: man+woman=child (conjunction) v. father -> son (innacurate
> hierarchy where half gets lost).
>
> Something like that.
>
> Thoughts
> Josiah
>
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/280e670e-ffb9-473d-b2f4-e2ac4642a3cd%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
