Experiment with using references to represent a Relation Proxy.
Our Topic Map Exploration turned into a project to create a wiki page that could represent a Topic Map RelationProxy. A RelationProxy contains a node identity and links to: relation type, subject, subject's role type, link to object, object's role type.
Jack Park's challenge (source 
):
> I want to say that Joe's shoesize was a 6 when he was 7 years old. How do I do that?
>
> I want to be able to make statements about people, places, and things, the statements for which I want to be accurate, timely, and discussable. It's not enough to say "Oh, Joe wore size 6 shoes" and leave the user wondering when ... he wore that size shoe or [whether he is a little person]...
A diagram of the relationship between Joe and his Name
I sketch what this might look like (first with paragraphs and then combined into a markdown)
Relation Type—A Person's Name Subject—Joe himself Subject Role Type—Named Person Role Object—The Name "Joe" Object Role Type—Name of Person Role
I'll create a page for the relationship. Joe's Name
I'll create a meta page for each of the properties.
Jack Park clarifies some things about topic maps. Everything in a topic map is an editorial decision. We wouldn't really want to draw the minutia of modeling Joe's Name because it isn't really a useful predicate. This example is possibly useful to clarify how topic maps work. But this is too granular for utility in the larger analysis of a complex system. Where you draw the boundaries of a complex system is important to the utility.
digraph { Joe -> Mary [label="likes"] }