I have a rough proposal for how to do this in a way that builds off of 's Discourse Graph Roam extension here: notes.denizay.org/#/page/buildin
Conversation
In short:
- Use block hierarchies as much as possible
- Stick as close to natural language as possible
- Any link can be used as a relationship
- Add a minimal syntax to indicate that a block describes a relationship (I suggest the arrow: "->")
Here's an example:
1
6
- [[Alice told me penguins can't fly]]
- [[opposes]] ->
- [[All birds can fly]]
- [[type is]] ->
- [[evidence]]
- <- [[informs]]
- [[Alice is a big jokester]]
3
1
4
[[Alice told me penguins can't fly]] has the relationship [[opposes]] with [[All birds can fly]], and the relationship [[type is]] with [[evidence]]. [[Alice is a big jokester]] has the relationship [[informs]] with [[Alice told me penguins can't fly]].
2
3
2. Allow users to create a mapping from their knowledge graph to a general ontology.
1
1
6
This could be like Discourse Graph's default ontology (types: questions, claims, evidence. relationships: supports, opposes, informs). More general ontologies could be provided as well (e.g. using existing work with RDF).
1
6
Side note: I'm considering knowledge graphs to be category theoretical categories and translations between them to be functors... I think this makes sense, but I don't have much rigor behind this connection just yet. Inspired by arxiv.org/abs/1909.04881 and
1
11
3. Make it possible to publish a subset of your knowledge graph and integrate other knowledge graphs into your own notes.
1
6
Once your knowledge graph is translated into a general ontology, anyone else who also has a translation into that ontology should be able to integrate your knowledge graph into their own notes. This would be a whole new way to share research and knowledge.
2
6
I think there's an opportunity to use block based writing to create well-typed, shareable knowledge with natural language. Would be curious to hear what others think.
cc:
6
9
You’re *really* going to like why we’re working on with the . Possibly building exactly what you’ve described 😉
"I think there's an opportunity to use block based writing to create well-typed, shareable knowledge with natural language" This agent-based modelling company agrees 🙈
1
1
5
See, these are my people 🥲
Had been wondering how could play a role in all this but hadn't checked recent developments. Exciting! And I'm very curious how this interface will work.. Let me know if I can help, I'm on the waitlist now 🙂
1
Curious to hear more, Maggie! Is the idea that blocks (in blockprotocol sense) might also encompass... semantic statements like claims, with a schema that cuts across particular tools?
6