Maybe I should explain what I'm wittering about, for once. If you can build a hypergraph out of trees then you must be able to split one into trees and what do trees make? Books!
My writing exists (theoretically) as a set of text fragments connected in an n-dimensional graph, representing a concept map and projected onto a few 2 dimensional diagrams (graphs) with rectangles around related concepts. Some of the concepts (of 'information metaphysics') are on multiple diagrams e.g. 'data', 'process', 'flow'. I need to create the hierarchically structured, paginated, sequential bit-stream we conventionally call "a book". This is proving harder than I imagined it would. Simplification is required, which I'm generally against.
If I turn the graph into a hypergraph by representing the categories as trees then I could (also theoretically) make rational decisions about where concepts are best placed and when they need to be repeated, so cut the fewest, least important links that are necessary to 'make it so'.
Interestingly, I think the graph-theory folk got there before me but possibly for different reasons. By the end of the book, I'm hoping to know what the tool I would have liked to help me write it, looks like. Any similarities to mind-maps in Pirsig's 'Lila' (but about 'Zen & The Art..' have already been noted. He was a tech writer at IBM, you know?
THIS LINE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK