AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy.git synced 2026-03-24 04:46:56 +00:00

[GH-ISSUE #27] [FR] Bidirectional Links Like Obsidian #15

New issue

Open

opened 2026-03-23 20:30:26 +00:00 by mirror · 7 comments

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:26 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @nimalu on GitHub (Nov 18, 2021).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy/issues/27

navigate from and to different documents through links
maybe use the same syntax as Obsidian so one could import/export from/to Obsidian
a graph which visualizes the connections between the linked documents

Links in Obsidian

Originally created by @nimalu on GitHub (Nov 18, 2021). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy/issues/27 - navigate from and to different documents through links - maybe use the same syntax as Obsidian so one could import/export from/to Obsidian - a graph which visualizes the connections between the linked documents [Links in Obsidian](https://help.obsidian.md/How+to/Internal+link)

mirror added the

new feature

2025

organization

labels

2026-03-23 20:30:26 +00:00

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:27 +00:00

Author

Owner

@Lloyd-Jackman-UKPL commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2021):

I'd absolutely love the graph functionality (am a big fan of Obsidian) but would be keen on even seeing it go one step further by defining linking documents by relationship types that could then be filtered in a graph view.

@Lloyd-Jackman-UKPL commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2021): I'd absolutely love the graph functionality (am a big fan of Obsidian) but would be keen on even seeing it go one step further by defining linking documents by relationship types that could then be filtered in a graph view.

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:27 +00:00

Author

Owner

@annieappflowy commented on GitHub (Apr 5, 2023):

Hi @nimalu001 @Lloyd-Jackman-UKPL , thanks a lot for your valuable input.
The feature development related to bidirectional links is about to start. I'd like to get some clarification.

A follow-up question for @nimalu001 , how do you like navigating from and to different documents through links? What pain points do you feel when using Obsidian's related features to navigate across pages?

A follow-up question for @Lloyd-Jackman-UKPL , can you elaborate on defining linking documents by relationship types? What goals are you trying to achieve with such features? Do relationship types refer to edges in the graph that connect to documents?

@annieappflowy commented on GitHub (Apr 5, 2023): Hi @nimalu001 @Lloyd-Jackman-UKPL , thanks a lot for your valuable input. The feature development related to bidirectional links is about to start. I'd like to get some clarification. A follow-up question for @nimalu001 , how do you like navigating from and to different documents through links? What pain points do you feel when using Obsidian's related features to navigate across pages? A follow-up question for @Lloyd-Jackman-UKPL , can you elaborate on defining linking documents by relationship types? What goals are you trying to achieve with such features? Do relationship types refer to edges in the graph that connect to documents?

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:27 +00:00

Author

Owner

@annieappflowy commented on GitHub (Apr 5, 2023):

@annieappflowy commented on GitHub (Apr 5, 2023): Related: https://github.com/AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy/issues/1813

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:27 +00:00

Author

Owner

@annieappflowy commented on GitHub (Apr 5, 2023):

@annieappflowy commented on GitHub (Apr 5, 2023): Related: https://github.com/AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy/issues/1591

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:28 +00:00

Author

Owner

@skewballfox commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2023):

not either of the above posters but I can answer both as someone who both regularly uses obsidians and has brushed up against its limitations

What pain points do you feel when using Obsidian's related features to navigate across pages?
mainly the inability to define aliases to headers sections. This comes up when doing things like defining a glossary, or when you want to have notes on a more abstract concept with multiple components (say like push and pop as related to stacks and queues), it comes up regularly when taking notes related to math or the programming

can you elaborate on defining linking documents by relationship types? What goals are you trying to achieve with such features? Do relationship types refer to edges in the graph that connect to documents?

again, not the OP so I can't answer this for him, but for me this comes up when doing things like using obsidian to map out an ontology. when I was taking notes for algorithms, I would have greatly appreciated a qualifier for links such as is_a (fractional knapsack is_a greedy algorithm), as it currently exist in obsidian, all links are equal(ly nondescript). While this is useful, it becomes less so when there is more than one type of relationship between the linked notes/concepts and current.

right now, I have a ton of notes linking to the definition of an invertible matrix, most of these are statements where some result is an invertible matrix, some where it's required of an input, one is the theorem associated with it(which is more a listing of properties), one is more eli5 notes on how to find it. There's currently no way in obsidian to make these relationship types distinct, other than explicitly adopting some structure to how your notes are composed.

I suppose these explicit relationships should be optional, and one possible way to handle that while keeping obsidian linking syntax(if that is a goal of yours) is to have some way of declaring these specific type of links in the metadata, or having an optional extra syntax for defining the relationship type.

honestly I'd be happy even with the basic bidirectional links so long as the search functionality is better than what is present in obsidian.

@skewballfox commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2023): not either of the above posters but I can answer both as someone who both regularly uses obsidians and has brushed up against its limitations > What pain points do you feel when using Obsidian's related features to navigate across pages? mainly the inability to define aliases to headers sections. This comes up when doing things like defining a glossary, or when you want to have notes on a more abstract concept with multiple components (say like push and pop as related to stacks and queues), it comes up regularly when taking notes related to math or the programming > can you elaborate on defining linking documents by relationship types? What goals are you trying to achieve with such features? Do relationship types refer to edges in the graph that connect to documents? again, not the OP so I can't answer this for him, but for me this comes up when doing things like using obsidian to map out an ontology. when I was taking notes for algorithms, I would have greatly appreciated a qualifier for links such as is_a (fractional knapsack is_a greedy algorithm), as it currently exist in obsidian, all links are equal(ly nondescript). While this is useful, it becomes less so when there is more than one type of relationship between the linked notes/concepts and current. right now, I have a ton of notes linking to the definition of an invertible matrix, most of these are statements where some result is an invertible matrix, some where it's required of an input, one is the theorem associated with it(which is more a listing of properties), one is more eli5 notes on how to find it. There's currently no way in obsidian to make these relationship types distinct, other than explicitly adopting some structure to how your notes are composed. I suppose these explicit relationships should be optional, and one possible way to handle that while keeping obsidian linking syntax(if that is a goal of yours) is to have some way of declaring these specific type of links in the metadata, or having an optional extra syntax for defining the relationship type. honestly I'd be happy even with the basic bidirectional links so long as the search functionality is better than what is present in obsidian.

mirror commented

2026-03-23 20:30:28 +00:00

Author

Owner

@almereyda commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2025):

Duplicates: