Proposal: render fieldnames as links, and see what's possible with fieldname nodes!

#21

If I can summarize what I got out of an exchange with @tomzheng in that thread a few months ago, he’s building a system that allows him to parse structured titles to declare relationships between tiddlers, which might then also let you derive additional facts. So for instance the title John Adams was married to Abigail Adams would be parsed by an explicit married to rule and assert a relationship between the tiddlers John Adams and Abigail Adams. His idea was that this would allow some recursive parsing to build up larger such relationships; his example was “Tom’s sister is Jerry’s sister’s teacher”.

While there are some very interesting ideas in there, I was never convinced that I would ever have any need for such a tool. And no, I don’t see that it has anything to do with this thread.

1 Like
#22

Thanks for filling in the missing connection, @Scott_Sauyet!

Indeed, when a field houses a relationship that is in a sense bigger than (or just not neatly subordinate to) either of the component tiddlers, then the implementation of a third tiddler to function as the relational bridge/glue makes a great deal of sense. Genealogical relations are a great case in point. (And I love the granular recursive possibilities of having a tiddler connecting Person1 as a witness to the event of a ceremony whereby the relation of A to B was formalized, etc. where templates in A and B reach into such relations to show the connections…, and maybe our web picks up on another tiddler in which a diary entry by Person2 serves as evidence that [Person1 witnessed the union of A and B], etc., though doubt was in turn cast on that diary entry by… [etc.])

Having a relation-holding tiddler would of course not possibly make sense for most bibliographic field-value pairs such as:

bibtex-year: 2021
bibtex-pages: 188
bibtex-LCCN: 2038748676
bixbtex-series: Emerging Research
bibtex-volume: 54

… where the field-values have little to zero “there” there across records with the same value (let alone the same value across multiple fields, as when 54 might be the volume value for one tiddler and the pages value for another!)

Even when the field-value does have a coherent tiddler-like identity worth linking up (such as author), it would very silly indeed to have a tiddler for the book, a tiddler for the author, and a THIRD logically independent tiddler to store the fact that this-here book was written by that-there person ;). One would never want one’s “grip” on a bibliographic record (say, in porting it from one wiki to another) to leave behind info that has this “card-catalog” constitutive relation to the tiddler’s content.

Still, one might want a relationship tiddler for something like (say) citation connections or special-purpose notes. (The fact that brown2024 cites mingus2019 certainly is “baked into” the brown book, but it’s not a “core” data point, and it wouldn’t scale well to cram all such detailed connections into the primary tiddler!)

#23

I don’t find it all that silly. I think there are plenty of times when this would make great sense.

If you think of certain records/tiddlers as representing bibliographic entries, then sure, you want them to be as intact and comprehensive as you reasonably can make them.

But if you think of your wiki as a whole as (at least in part) a bibliography, then it might make more sense. So if the following two questions have equal importance in your wiki, then a well-normalized (in the database sense) set of data could well be the best structure:

  • Who wrote The Fragility of Goodness?
  • What works did Martha Nussbaum publish?

This helps to some extent with the “Martha Nussbam”/“Nussbaum, Martha C” problem, as we can have a dropdown to select Person when creating an Person/Work tiddler. And we can have an aliases list field on the Person tiddler. And if we have separate Citation records, then the appropriate format of the author’s name in that instance can be in its own field.

On the other hand, I don’t see any good reason for any such many-to-many relationships between a work and a bibtex-year. If I wanted context around the year – What other works were published that year? Who was born/died/married in that year? Etc. – then I would expect a virtual tiddler with a template that could answer those questions. The difference is that an author feels like an important entity. A year does not.

You know tremendously more than I do about academic bibliographies, so I may be talking out of my hat. But this idea fits with with how I’ve built a number of other wikis.

#24

And I suspect I would have spoken against compound titles, but in the absence of an approach to better support relationships it is a brave attempt.

Agreed

Here in my Infinite Topic No touch tags - or flags on tiddlers without editing or changing the tiddler - #102 by TW_Tones I recently raised;

  • The exception may be when we want more info stored in the relationship itself.

Essential to support accross tiddler relationships

As I belive I have some methods available now to build a robust set of inter tiddler relationship tools I have one remaining problem to be solved. This is well reflected in the concept of marriage.

  • If Mr and Mrs are married it is a relationship
  • However it should be time limited where possible
    • A marriage has a start date and may have an end date
    • What if we know they married but not when? we still want to maintain the relationship
    • What if we want to record when we recorded it?
    • What if we know the year not the date?
  • So there is sometimes, if not often, a need for relationships to;
    • Be maintained even with changes in one of the related tiddlers, or the relationship
    • Contain additional information

I am working on finding a solution to the issues around this right now;

Linking tiddlers via there title eg; ones spouse, yet storing additional information about that relationship.

#25

You’re dealing with the usual tiddlers and fields. For example:


title: title1

field1:value1

Then field1 is converted into a link.

Through filters or other programming methods, you can derive value1 from title1 and field1. You can also display this value1 to users via views.

I placed all information within the title. For example:


title:title1

title:field1

title:value1

title:title1 field1 value1

Since all these are titles, they are all links.

Currently, I cannot obtain value1 through filters or programming methods. I can only allow users to derive value1 from title1 and field1 via views.

My solution not only retrieves value1 from title1 and field1, but also obtains field1 and title1 from value1. Queries can be performed in either direction, similar to Prolog.

In Prolog, if the information a b c exists, you can query a b X to obtain c, or query X b c to obtain a.

Many phenomena share underlying commonalities.

For instance, tag1 can add supplementary information to title1. For example:


title:title1

tag:tag1

However, if we avoid using tags and instead employ wiki links, we can organize information in a similar manner. For example:


title:tag1

text:[[title1]]

We achieve the tag effect through backlinks.

For example, the following two approaches achieve the same effect:


tag:tag1 tag2



tag1:

tag2:

No solution is unique; alternatives exist for any approach. Multiple paths lead to the same destination. For instance, I replaced the outliner with the table.

My ssspc can also store field name and field value information while generating links. Thus, it aligns with this thread’s core point. It isn’t a field-specific solution. But for storing supplementary information, fields aren’t the only approach.

Therefore, my reminder in this thread is: if you require field values to be links, consider abandoning the field method and adopting the ssspc approach. This provides a ready-made solution.

My approach also qualifies as a no-touch tags solution.

My approach is to attach information to a tiddler in another location.

My approach allows attaching information to multiple tiddlers in bulk.

However, my approach is completely unrelated to TiddlyWiki’s existing information structure. Should I participate in TiddlyWiki discussions?

#26

@Springer

I just want to support the clarity in your first post, and also you using field-description. Using this prefix field- for all field-related data tiddlers can similtaniously be tags, field and contain other content.

  1. Should the fieldname solution be “direct” or “indirect”?
  • I think we should start with direct fieldname, but provide an option to migrate to $:/fields/fieldname if needed. The editor and other tools can be designed to look for $:/fields/fieldname first then fieldname. This allows us to use the system thus hidden form if the fieldname clashes with anything.
  1. Should users have fine-grained option to enable/disable “missing” fieldname links?
  • On second reading I think this is a good idea, especialy when parsed in the text field. But we need a local overide for some cases where the fieldname is multifunction eg the tags field may also open the/a tags manager.
  • Secondly we can have a more > fields tab to access them if disabled.
  1. What do you all think are the essential or most exciting fields about fields ?
    I think the latitude to define a field even complex attributes through field- prefixed fields. Here are some I want;
  • field-description what is it about
  • field-caption eg description field may have Description sentence case
  • field-tooltip appears on mouse over
  • field-values filter or list on what where to find values
  • field-type - this would point to a shared field-type whic may describe how to edit or display a color field, email address, short text, numbers etc… there will be far fewer field-types than fields needing definition
    • A field although it has a field-type may localy override a field-type-fieldname if it differs from a field-typ tiddler in some way, just by including that field-type-fieldname in a field tiddler.
    • For full and comprehencive field handling we would need to discuss what exists within a field-type tiddler, even if they are the same tiddler.
    • An important thing about field-types is they can be freely built and shared without use unless assigned to a field-tiddler.
  • The items you raise such as is_textarea/is_list etc… are better handled in reusable field-type-fieldnames be they in the field tiddler or in a shared field-type-tiddler

In a related matter it is clear we can say use an arbitary field to indicate it is a field tiddler eg field-description but this is somewhat arbitary, and one needs to remember what it is. I have come to the conclusion we need a defacto standard of a tiddler-type where we can indicate it is a field-tiddler, field-type-tiddler and other forms like contact, bookmark, organisation, domain, project etc…

  • However as discussed above one tiddler can quite easily have more than one role so perhaps tiddler-types (field) could be a list of roles, or we could use a tiddler-roles field?
  • We may then simple add another role or type to the list to create a field tiddler. The view template can then add a panel to any tiddler found to have the field role (or other roles). Such pannels can be turned off globaly with $:/config/design-mode=no
    • We can have a cascade option for loading the correct view template, body template(s) etc… for each role provisioned in advance, just use them as needed.
#27

I am not sure I grasp this. With my own deep knowledge to TiddlyWiki I feel I need to mature what we already have.

If it may help, when you go into tiddlywikis editor and have a custom field its editable towards the bottom of the page. Where you will see the field name in text as a lable to the field. This is where we were proposing having that fieldname link to a tiddler of the same name, like tag tiddlers (the tag pills) link to a tiddler with the tags name, at first missing, if you create a tiddler from a tag, we call it a “tag tiddler” and this topics idea was to also have “field tiddlers” and there in we can start to build additional features as we do for “tag tiddlers” that can have a caption, description, icon color etc…

  • However in the case of field tiddlers we can start to introduce field-types, selection filters and value and more.
#28

From the perspective of improving TiddlyWiki, there’s no point in discussing it further, because my solution doesn’t utilize TiddlyWiki’s data structure at all.

I fully understand what this thread is discussing. In the demo, clicking the field name brings up the field tiddler. Within the field tiddler, you can see all the values for that field, as well as which tiddlers contain values for that field. My solution can fully achieve this effect.

#29

Of course you should! You clearly have something interesting to offer.

But I’ve invested a reasonable amount of time in trying to understand ssspc. While I think I’ve grasped the basics, I also haven’t seen any use-cases where I would choose it over other TW techniques. Perhaps at some point I’ll have a moment of enlightenment where this suddenly makes sense to me. I haven’t gotten there yet, though.