Re: [O] org-mode for knowledge management

[John Hendy]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Eric Abrahamsen
<address@hidden> wrote:
> John Hendy <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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 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.
>
> Isn't this what tags are good for, though? Sort of providing a secondary
> structure to your information, orthogonal to Org's subtree structure?

Agreed, and have tried that, though that has issues as well, unless
I'm missing something (see below).

>
>> 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.
>
> You could organize a project by subtree, but put generally-useful
> research elsewhere, and tag that research by theme. Then give the
> project subtree its own tag, but also add tags to the relevant research
> themes. Open an Agenda with a "projecttag|themetag" tag search to see
> both general research and project-specific stuff.
>
> When the time comes, the project subtree gets archived, but the thematic
> stuff stays.

This is the bit I'm not sure about...

* project_a
** experiment about blah     :proj_name:theme:
[2014-10-11]

Did x, y, and z today. Will analyze results tomorrow.

[2014-10-12]

Wow. Interesting finding. This will help a lot and may be relevant to
future projects!

So... when I archive project_a, don't I lose the thematic information
from my experiment? This is sort of the conundrum I often find myself
in. I work in product development, and many of the difficulties,
experimental findings, or even contacts/information for a given
project seem like they'd be really helpful to recall/go back to for
future projects. The learning is uncovered only because I'm working on
launching *this* product... but isn't inherently relevant *only* to
this project.

I've migrated from one file per project like I used to do to the big
'ol one-file method (except for a contacts.org file and miscellany).
Thus, I tend to like to archive, but for whatever reason have an
aversion to agenda-ing on archived stuff. I find I only look in
archives when someone asks something really specific about a past
project and I think I have notes on it.

Anyway, that was my thought.

I saw Daniel replied as well; you both understand my struggle -- you
tackle it with tags and he's suggesting lots of links (more on that in
a sec).


Thanks!
John

>
> Anyway, I'm sure you've considered all this, just curious what your
> thoughts on tags are...
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> [snip]
>
>