I am just now learning about it from the book How to Take Smart Notes, so I could be off, but that's part of the idea. With that said, I think what you suggest could possibly be a cool supplement or replacement.
I am just now learning about it from the book How to Take Smart Notes, so I could be off, but that's part of the idea. With that said, I think what you suggest could possibly be a cool supplement or replacement.
If I have a conversation with X and discover they're an expert about Y, learning fact Z, I like to record Z as a file, and link it to both X and Y. That forces me to keep X and Y as entities in the graph. Which, if I care about them, is worth doing.
The real beauty of making those connections is the act of classifying something can cause you to explicitly recognize what concepts it is related to, and formulate precisely what the connection is.
The real pain point is knowing what your future self will wish your past self kept a file on. Some ideas (generally more social science-related ones, but also something like a bug involving the interaction of a lot of disparate technologies) are so cross-cutting that I'd need to make five parent concepts to file them "completely", and often then I'd like to file those parent concepts further. I generally don't.
I tried to square this circle once by writing Hode[1], which permits encoding certain data as relevant to me, and then filter my view accordingly when I wanted. But the encoding process (i.e. the user experience when adding data to one's knowledge base) was so hard that I gave up.