Re: [O] org-mode for knowledge management

[Daniel Clemente]

El Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:48:39 -0500 John Hendy va escriure:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Daniel Clemente <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I've been using org-mode for a variety of purposes for a few years. I 
> >> > find
> >> > that it suffers from the same problem that other such tools do. The
> >> > problem is me. I can't remember week to week how I may have classified
> >> > some scrap of information. Did I drop it into notes/someproduct.org or 
> >> > was
> >> > it procedures/someprocess.org?
> >
> > 1. Every information should have a single location, not two. Mix sections 
> > fast
> > if you detect repetitions. Use links extensively (C-c l) to connect one 
> > header
> > with another, specially after you get lost once. Don't bother too much about
> > finding the right place at the first time, you'll eventually reorder or move
> > headers to the correct place.
> 
> I'm curious about this. Is this a well-known recommendation/best
> practice? 

  I find it it similar to the „Don't repeat yourself“ principle. But I was just 
explaining my experience.

> I actually struggle with this a great deal. Often a bit of
> research or testing for a specific project at work is very possibly
> relevant to any number of future projects. So, working in product
> development, I find it hard to decide what the best "single location"
> is, and would love for it to act as though it were in multiple
> locations.
> 
> When the current project is done, I'd like to archive everything
> specifically related to it while keeping around the general knowledge
> I've accumulated for use with future efforts.

  I use no tags or categories, just a clear and manual separation of concepts. 
E.g. it's not the same activity „I'm learning about database X“ and „I'm 
considering database X for project Y“, because notes from the first one go to 
Databases.org and notes from the second one to ProjectY.org. Clocking is 
different (even if I'm learning about X, I clock in Y if I'm doing it as part 
of a project).
  Therefore I try to keep project notes at a minimum, because they are dated 
and ephimeral, whereas the general knowledge accumulates in other files (one 
file per topic, encyclopedia-style).

> 
> Or is this what you mean by using links? Are you just saying that
> individuals should not be copying the same text around in multiple
> places?
> 

  Of course copy+paste is a nightmare to maintain (see: DRY). I am still forced 
to do it with some org tables which do complex calculations. I think org offers 
dynamic tables to apply the same process to different data sources, but it gets 
complex. I think there's no such thing as „templates“ where you change the base 
one and all uses of it (in all files) are automatically updated.

  About links: in org-mode they all look the same, but semantically there are 
many types, like:
- *is-a*: „this is a concrete implementation of [[that generic knowledge]]“
- *related*: „related to this is: [[that]]“
- *same-as*: „this and [[that]] are exactly the same topic, so write only under 
that header, not here“ ← this is poor man's transclusion, or more like 
„symbolic links“ in ext4. With it, a header seems to be present in many places 
at the same time; in reality the content is only in one place and the rest are 
links. The good thing is, it doesn't really matter /where/ exactly is that 
tree, because you'll find it anyway by following maximum 1 link. X can link to 
Y, or Y can link the X; what's important is that reading both X or Y you'll 
find exactly the same thing (not copy+pasted contents).

  So, it's all about finding a manual algorithm to organize things.


Daniel