As a follow-up on the general thoughts about think-tools for connective knowledge (see part 1), I compiled some concrete examples.
In the diagram abstracted below, I grouped the various tools and work-arounds I have experimented with (details upon request) during the last years, by their inclination towards the three modalities. The center is empty, which means the ideal tool is yet to be developed.
A very promising candidate is DeepaMehta.de (mentioned much too sceptically before), since its shortcomings in respect of visualization and text are not at all restrictions by design but purely by the present stage of implementation.
I look forward to the future development.
Finally, a note on the term modalities: The changing of the shape of the connections can be seen as morphing, somewhat like the caterpillar to pupa to butterfly, or like the states of matter from solid to fluid to gas.
However, the metaphor of the sensory modalities seems more appropriate, since seeing and hearing is significantly involved in the visual and verbal occurrences. Also, multi-modal encoding of learning content is more useful than monomodal, and I think the same is true for connections. And lastly, it makes sense to borrow the term from a lower (the sensory) layer, just as “conceptual data structures” (CDS, which greatly inspired my thinking) borrows its knowledge-related term from the data layer far below, since in both cases it is about very fundamental building blocks that allow, in turn, for building higher levels upon them.