I am throwing this out there for your comments. Can you blog replies or comment here please?
When we follow a link we can think of it as tearing a slit through the document and going to, or retrieving, another document or resources. Hence the fanciful name SLT.
It is very clear that link types can be useful in some instances and it is equally clear that they are not useful in all instances and the last few decades have demonstrated that there is a huge issue with building any kind of consensus of types.
So why not make the link types super simple and ‘dumb’ and let the smarts happen on the connections? Why not let anyone define a type simply by appending the type to the end of a link and optionally including a reference to a glossary/definition which the reader software can choose to parse or ignore?
These are questions and I am sharing this with you because you are very smart and may very well have thought about this. Shall we try to do something about this?
If ‘q’ is used to say query, as show here:
Why not simply add ‘lt’ for link type:
And an optional link to the glossary like this:
I would implement something like this in Author and Reader, where maybe in Reader some of the link types could result in info boxes as is done in Wikipedia, since Reader will know the link is to a small bit of further information. & etc.
What do you think? Too complicated or too simple or not useful enough?
I was reminded of link types today because Mark Anderson wrote:
Link types were more of a thing in 1980s hypertext as they reflected/allowed argumentation and simple computational inquiry across the network. Randy Trigg (who worked on Notecards with Halasz, at PARC) in his 1983 PhD thesis http://www.workpractice.com/trigg/thesis-chap4.html defined a complex list of >80 link types. It was around this point (source – convo with Mark Bernstein) the hypertext decided it was all getting too much and link types got kicked into the long grass.
See: https://www.eastgate.com/HypertextNow/archives/Trigg.html Interestingly, in the last para it says “Storyspace has no link types, nor do HyperCard and its descendants, nor does the Web.“ Interestingly, Tinderbox—which was designed c2000 and first published (https://www.acrobatfaq.com/atbref8/index/PreviousVersions.html) c.Feb 2002 *does* have link types, though hardly anyone uses them except as visual labels on links.