Re: [Orgmode] property searches for #+CATEGORY

[Carsten Dominik]

Thanks for an interesting discussion about the merits of properties
versus tags etc.  Very illuminating.

However, I do think that Adam's initial request to make the
category available as a special property for queries in not
unreasonble.  Or does anyone disagree?

I am not sure, though, if the #+CATEGORY category should be
available with `org-entry-get', because it would then be very
hard for the property API to make a difference between a value
that is intimately associated with the current entry, and a
value that might be derived by some other mechanism.  So here I
differ somewhat from Adam's feeling that category is just like
TODO or a tag.  It is different.

But for the search interface, to allow CATEGORY="work", I think
that would be a safe thing to do.  Will be in 5.14, unless I hear
good arguments against this.

- Carsten

On  7Nov2007, at 2:59 PM, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:

> On 07/11/2007, Adam Spiers <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:23:12PM +0100, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On 07/11/2007, Adam Spiers <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > I have several personal .org files, and several work-related  
> > > > ones too.
> > > > In each personal file, I have a line:
> > > >
> > > >   #+CATEGORY: personal
> > > >
> > > > and in each work-related file, I have a line:
> > > >
> > > >   #+CATEGORY: work
> > > >
> > > > I would like to be able to bind agenda custom commands to do tag
> > > > searches which are narrowed to one of these categories, e.g.  
> > > > "show me
> > > > all personal priority #A tasks".  Such a search needs to span *all*
> > > > agenda files, therefore the standard per-buffer narrowing  
> > > > provided by
> > > > the '<' binding in the *Agenda Commands* buffer is insufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Would it make sense to include CATEGORY as a special property?   
> > > > After
> > > > all, pretty much all other per-task meta-data ("TODO", "PRIORITY"
> > > > etc.) are already available via the property interface, and this  
> > > > way,
> > > > I could easily achieve what I need with tag searches such as
> > > >
> > > >   CATEGORY="personal"+PRIORITY="A"
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > It would seem to me that this is exactly what tags does.
> > > You could move everything down a level and use tag inheritance:
> > > * personal stuff :personal:
> > > * work stuff :work:
> >
> > I could, but this would mean that each file would have a single
> > top-level entry, and the entire contents would be indented an extra
> > level, which I fear is a rather unattractive solution!
>
> It's the technique i've been using, and yes, it is unattractive.
>
> When i thought of tags, it was not explicitly for GTD context
> specifier, it was also for adding searchable metadata to a todo node.
> I'm finding out that it gets diluted somewhat.
>
> It guess its a matter of taxonomy. Roughly i would see this as:
>
> 1. State - TODO - DO/CANCEL/DONE
> 2. Context - tags - :@home:@phone:
> 3. Date/Time - <2007-10-10>
> 4. Meta Context - Category - personal, work etc,
> 5. Meta State - Properties drawer - :EMAIL:address@hidden
> 6. Meta DateTime - state/time logging -
>
> How about adding the context to the tag table with a prefix  
> character, say #?
>
> Tim.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode