I have been toying around with the idea to automatically link documents to newly created “tag”-notes (based on the $Codes attribute) in order explore the relationship between the two in hyperbolic view (see screenshot below). For this it would be great to specify the degree of relationship that is still shown - seven levels down probably all my notes are connected, two levels down it might be a different story.
Is this somehow possible? Or maybe an option for the future?
Up/Down doesn’t apply in this context. Hyperbolic view works of the link structure not the outline. Indeed, the background to this was a desire to be able to view the (linked) hypertext with the underlying outline flattened.
However, I think you are possibly talking about allowing the hyperbolic view to have a variable scope. By default it shows all links - thus the whole document. Whereas I think you want to be able to set—for example—the view to not map more than N links out from the note with current focus. If so, that would be a feature request at this point (which I advise you email in with a use case, so it is seen).
It was the second part of your answer. By “two levels down” I meant “two links out from the note of the current focus”, in your words. I imagine that a “two levels out”-view would show which documents and tags are closely related, don’t you think?
Completely agree would be very helpful to be able to limit hyperbolic view to only show certain levels or direct linked notes from the selected one. I have a network of 400 notes and hyperbolic is simple not useable with so many notes.
Try it with aTbRef! Still, it is a good addition and I’m sure a filter will come. A long-unfulfilled ambition with aTbRef was to experiment with link types to generate trails to cover specific series of notes. That sort of fine detail needs a hyperbolic link view with a few more (as-yet missing) features. I also think in a mature hypertext with rich linking you want to be able to see/compare two different link-type based views. I’ve not tried making different hyperbolic view configuration in two different doc windows, indeed that may not be possible. Also when testing/revising link structures sometimes to want to see what should be linked but isn’t (though quite how you figure that out, I’m not yet sure!).
Kumu looks interesting. I’ve exported data from Tinderbox to Gephi (it’s free but clunky) by generating node/edge lists, but it’s harder work to get a decent crossflow. That’s why I’m keen to see hyperbolic view progress. Sexy visuals are nice but often (certainly in Gephi) need hand tweaking such that it fells like one is using a drawing app.
Given the current fascination with Social Networks—just one sort of network—has meant lots of tools over-optimised on that use and thus less use for the knowledge discovery sort of work for which Tinderbox is so good.
The forthcoming Obsidian macOS / Windows / Linux Roam-wannabe client has a “Graph” view very reminiscent of Kumu. Since Obsidian works with locally-stored files there might eventually be a place for it in the Tinderbox / DEVONthink universe.
Shouldn’t have Googled ‘Obsidian’ as I’m now in sea of Star Trek lore. Is there a link for this new tool or is it too new to have a web presence? Anyway, sounds interesting.
Yes, agree such network representation do fit only some purposes. But particular when you have hundreds of nodes, such visualization can help you to identify patterns you have not seen before. That is were hyperbolic view falls short at the moment. I wrote my own custom python script to convert the tabular view of Kumu into xml pieces for nodes and connections.
Sorry, here’s Obsidian’s web presence and their forum. Obsidian is by invitation only, but they usually grant admission to the beta pretty quickly. It is developed by the same duo who produce Dynalist.
Nice. Just posted (oops -on backstage)m about unfortunate collision of link types as link metadata vs drawing-mode use as text labels for visible lines. The two uses overlap but aren’t the same. in thie sort of view like above, I’d expect link type to be used to style the edges in some way (if at all) e.g. colour, rather than clutter the plot with extra text. I quite accept others may have a different opinion on this.
I suspect this graph is generated by some third-party .js or other plug-in and was not spec-built for Obsidian – it’s a bit too polished. But yes, it misses a lot of possibilities as @mwra mentioned. Although something like this would be a good view for Tinderbox I suppose.
Still, it is a good addition and I’m sure a filter will come. A long-unfulfilled ambition with aTbRef was to experiment with link types to generate trails to cover specific series of notes. That sort of fine detail needs a hyperbolic link view with a few more (as-yet missing) features. I also think in a mature hypertext with rich linking you want to be able to see/compare two different link-type based views. I’ve not tried making different hyperbolic view configuration in two different doc windows, indeed that may not be possible. Also when testing/revising link structures sometimes to want to see what should be linked but isn’t (though quite how you figure that out, I’m not yet sure!).
Is there a link for this new tool or is it too new to have a web presence? Anyway, sounds interesting.