[gardenfelder]

The implied relation between nodes seems to be "is related to" or "is associated with" - the same kind of babble you see in PubMed research where authors don't want to go out on limbs and make causal claims.

I would argue that a rich knowledge tool should spend a lot of time teasing out the nature of those relationships.

Having said that, this class of visual tool is going to see a lively future.

[cyclecycle]

I agree, it's currently very superficial. It would be great to recognise and show more about the specific nature of the relationships.

What kind of thing would you hope to see here? A textual summary of the relationship? Or perhaps there is more that can be done with shapes and colours in this area?

[gardenfelder]

This is a rich topic and great question, one to which we should all try offer answers.

From my experience, I work with topic maps - extremely rich knowledge graphs, and an ISO 13250 standard, and I work with NLP, which entails a lot more detail than just talking about relations: they are first class citizens (subjects) in a graph, not just labeled arcs. I spoke about them here [1]

[1] https://www.slideshare.net/jackpark/lbd-tm2