I've though about improving [[Roam]] with semantics but maybe this is a fools errand. Human's use of language is somewhere between the bag-of-word model and pa

I've though about improving [[Roam]] with semantics but maybe this is a fools errand. Human's use of language is somewhere between the bag-of-word model and part-of-speech tagging. Neither a word salad nor a constructive proof based in first-order-logic. I had a [[meeting]] with [[John Doe]] about [[Project X]]. Is much more natural then: _:meeting1 a schema:Meeting; schema:participant [ a foaf:Person; rdfs:label "John Doe" ] ; The early web is also more like roam than the semantic web, and the reason why something like page-ranks works is because the links form "naturally". The semantic web wanted to make them "understandable" to computers, but made linking too difficult for people. Even still, the task of understanding humans has nothing to do with semantics. The academic discipline that studies this is called language pragmatics. BTW, this problem was why Wittgenstein had a nervous breakdown, trying to proof/compute the meaning of statements with other statements. At the end of the day words mean what they mean, i mean, I have a Beatle in a box in my head and you have a Beatle in a box in your head. Mine walks and flies though the air, yours drives on the road. We expect computers to be able to do this but I suspect that this won't happen until they can take a shit. Maybe it's not a bad goal to have, but, even the semantic web (academic) community has given up on that question and has pivoted its effort to saving the web and giving people back control of their data with the power of a digital twin, whatever that is.