So, in an effort to force myself to think about how a new note links up to the existing network, I have template that inserts something like this into every new note:
> [!metadata]- Relations > [adjacent:: ] / > [parent:: ] / > [sibling:: ] / > [previous:: ] / > [next:: ] / > [child:: ] /
I populate as many fields as I go along. Sometimes I add relations, other times I might even remove them. It allows me to capture strong relations that may not be in the text, and plays very well with, e.g. the breadcrumbs plugin.
> [!metadata]- Relations > [adjacent:: [[notes/foo|Title of Foo]] ] / > [adjacent:: [[notes/bar|Title of Bar]] ] / > [parent:: [[notes/baz|Title of Baz]] ] /
I thought by keeping to a small set of consistent terms for some core relation types, it would work across all sorts of knowledge domains and make surfacing and discovery easier.
But at the same time, I want to communicate more semantics than just “parent” etc…
I would like to be able to express things like:
- “‘parent’ in the sense of background theory/framework”
- “parent in the sense that you have the understand this other note as a pre-requisite”
- “parent in the sense that it is a project that required me to understand this concept” etc.
Is there a way I can do this without an explosion of metadata fields?
One way that occurred to was to use the alias field, e.g.
[adjacent:: [[notes/foo|Relevant literature]] ]
Do folks have other systems or maybe just an overall better approach?