This could be just like discourse graph’s default ontology (types: questions, claims, evidence, etc. relationships: supports, opposes, informs, etc)

References

joel chan discourse graph

for example, a general ontology may be like joel chan’s discourse graph (types: question, claim, evidence, etc.. relationships: supports, opposes, informs, etc)

Users may prefer to use semantic complements like in discourse graph (supports and supported by)

For one, a non-restrictive grammar allows users to not have to create prefix links in the front of every linked note like in discourse graph. This will be beneficial for use cases that want to connect a large volume of notes in their knowledge graph but don’t want to be restricted to a specific note naming system.

Familiar to discourse graph users

This is a generalized knowledge graph proposal based off of the work on discourse graph by joel chan and david vargas, so thank you to them. Other inspiration is listed in: # Resources

discourse graph

e.g. discourse graph, or semantic triples

Downside, it would be harder to add inline CSS for links like discourse graph does

discourse graph

I have a rough proposal for how to do this in a way that is similar to joel chan’s discourse graph here: building a knowledge graph in logseq

joel chan discourse graph