[quote=“brsma, post:47, topic:8327, full:true”]
I think that both approches would work together very naturally. I really like Logseq’s concept of graphs built by links and backlinks for working with information on a block-level. This is definitely the way to go to refine the information. It wouldn’t make any sense to use tags for this (I think that was one of the criticisms of the articles you linked). Once you get to the level of collating and synthesizing information, links are far superior to tags. One can also push this further into the link direction and augment individual links with information, as suggested by @menelic.
So I don’t want to get rid of the graph at all, but I want to augment the graph with some structured hierarchical way to get to the relevant nodes.
I have about 10k items in my literature database, I would love to import this into Logseq to be able to leverage Logseq’s graph, but importing the 10k items would lead to a graph that looks like the Milky Way and be pretty much unusable. On the other hand, the items in Zotero are already heavily tagged and sorted into Zotero Collections, and as nearly all of them are library items we can get a lot of data for free from existing databases. These tags and collections also come with a hierarchy, but currently Logseq can’t use this information.
Even without doing any tagging this could be used to build a very impressive browser to get to specific locations on the graph.