My experience is links get used in two quite discrete ways. The most common is in Map view, where a visible link is drawn between notes to indicate connections or dependencies. A corollary is that the link type is use as a visual label of link intent.
The other, richer, form is using links (very often not in Map-centric use) where the the link type is used for signalling the semantic intent completely disconnected from whether the link is ever drawn on screen.
Neither is ‘better’. That is a false comparison, but it does call one to question personal workflow.
If one is of the ilk of those who think “can’t the computer just tell me?”, then copy a list from the web or a book and march the list. This is not wrong if it is what you want.
My earlier answer spoke to a more considered approach. Which circles back to your question:
Actually, and not judgmentally, I do think you are wrong but only because you make these a false binary. We are only the prisoner of our false assumptions. For instance if I ‘think’ in terms of a a map how else can I show dependencies except linking parents to children. An outline has no such dependency. However, as my post up-thread suggested, the real value is in more nuanced thinking: how does book X relate to book Y and why—in terms of a putative reading order. For that attributes are probably your start. After that you may choose to add links etc, though I think links are inadequate at capturing such nuance in the initial analysis .(and I’m happy to be wrong!).
It is also important to clarify if we are reading a canon where little if any choice exists as to order, or whether the order is less fixed (for any of a host of reasons).
I saw , sadly I forget where, someone describe a book pre-review process, where they started by looking at each book with an aim to figure the time-to-read needed to read it. A book’s page count is a poor guide as in a scholarly monograph the endnotes may be a significant proportion of the page count. Annotating the chapter page counts (and perhaps intro and epilogue) can give a better insight into the effort/time needs: not everyone has all day to read.