Multi-dimensional Relations

Talk
,
2

Thanks for writing up your thought process on this big topic. It does take stimulations to dig deeper into the operations and concepts.

Would the following work for you? Not through the multi-dimensional relation way.
For Workout

  1. Grouping relations with fixed vertical hierarchy (at Library for organisation) ← Like FR Object/attribute collection - use hierarchies and semantic versioning
  2. Store relation content “5” to the relation (no. of sets) at journal object
    This way you can query 5 as part of workout.
  3. Relations to act as information control/storage centre for layers of contents for an object (also set/collection), to control what information to be displayed or queried. ← Like FR highlighting tag colour for femininity, masculinity for language learning (don’t remember the exact FR)

For movie
Similar to workout, but there is no fixed hierarchy on relation types. Make a relation with preset linking to another relation with something like FR embedded templates to pre-input relation structure. Then query usage of that embedded template.
Or use FR object’s Title with relations so naming convention pushes year and reward together. This way we treat it as multi-dimensional object, not multi-dimensional relation.

MEANING OF MULTI-DIMENSION

I reckon the meaning of multi-dimensional relations can be sometimes unclear. And perhaps we need to ask ourselves if we are talking about multi-dimensional object or multi-dimensional relation.

To me, multi-dimension is something that exists on different fields/axes at the same time. Each dimension can contain different levels or layers, which could also be linking to other things. The interaction quantity (matrix) can accumulate up to the no. of dimensions^ no. of dimensions. Each single point of either object or relation can interact with another point.

If there is fixed hierarchy, it is possible to treat the component as single dimension, as we can trace information from above to below, following the same axis. You can tell by context that push-up is a sport; it won’t suddenly become a machine that push things up. It is possible pre-determine the structure of information.

However, in my use case (between art and science), adding to fixed hierarchy, there are times when there is no definitive structure and no fix hierarchy, unless at the point of reference, aka loose hierarchy, correlation, and/or dynamics. Or in the middle of forming structure, e.g. factor analysis.

For example, Person A has abc characteristics. When A interacts with people, it demonstrates 123 reactions. Then abc depends on personality theories xyz, introducing another dimension of multiple layers and structures.

Let’s say z,1,c: we have c1z from person perspective; 1cz from incident perspective; zc1 from z theory perspective. Each combination is a single multi-dimensional object of its attributes - that is 3 links to 3 objects as 1 structure/framework. Each object becomes 1 dimension in terms of referencing/relation.

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL RELATION

Since y understand 123 differently, there are also 1’2’3’. I might be addressing (Azc1 ≡ Ay2a) ∵ (c1 pathway with 2a pathway) ⇒ (z1’≈y2)).

All ()s are single relation. () within () is sub-relation.
If () has more than one sub-relation within, it can be split, hence making multi-dimensional relation.
“≡”, “≈”, “with/+”, “∵”, as well as “via” or “in the means of”, are all relation types, or nature of relations, or logical representation. (See a list of Logic symbol and logic representation)

I would be querying z expecting to see Azc1 and z1’ along with (Azc1 ≡ Ay2a), (z1’≈y2), (c1 pathway with 2a pathway) ⇒ (z1’≈y2)), but not Ay2a, c1 and 2a, unless specified elsewhere.

To add, 123 might contains vector (e.g. emotions) or scalar (e.g. mood) and number, aka directions of relation and quantifier ← Like FR Nested Relation / Treat Relations as any other objects / Sub-Relations)

So my use case would depends a lot more on relations as object. That way multi-dimensional relation can simply be interpreted as relations containing different multi-dimensional objects.

What I would need for this to work is:

Multiple inputs of objects/contents ‘abc’; not just the current ‘b links/relates to c’.
Relation types or nature (indicating hierarchy and logic)
and Relation name?

I believe in most cases, considering all of the above would slow down the note-taking process. It is not necessary to go over the board if we are only talking about A’s sister is B (display name is sister; hierarchy is sibling; umbrella/grouping of relation is relative).

ADDITIONAL CONTEXTS

Dimensional data model: structure
Relational data model: one to one; one to many; many to many.

P.S. I learned a lot through thinking about this too, so I might not be right at times. Hope readers can understand :face_with_peeking_eye:. Thank you for spending time reading :wink:
P.S.2. I hope I am not making it too difficult for Anytype team. :flexed_biceps: