Reading this a bit closer, I do believe Logseq’s concept of tag is indeed close to what I envisioned, at least from a non-tag but heavy-relation user’s perspective.
However, considering the existing difference between link/mention and relation and the strong support over tag-relation in the community, I would say this feature request doesn’t attempt to combine object and tag into one thing or compressing the tag function into display options alone. This should allow tags to be used outside block-and-editor/canvas as well.
Through the use of different relations, users should be able to create their own tag relation (or use the existing tag relation in enhanced form) to:
- retain a tag structure (if desired, e.g. tag hierarchy through collection specific relation)
- distinguish the connection status - link/mention or relate
- limit queried objects for searching for easier reach for the required object e.g. search syntax, or through advanced filter for object type in object-supported relation
- hide or show in graph, through graph filter to show only certain related objects; or even decide the location of the tag/relation display e.g. mimicking the profile and online status, this is how we can show an due task on graph, using a border line or a red dot on the object’s icon (If the icon is larger) ← a possible idea for a different feature request
- etc.
Some of these functions are based on utilising or enriching existing features in Anytype, thus I omitted some explanations for easier reading. But these should distinguish between Object as tag with relation and Logseq’s tag/link system.