Re: [O] org-mode for knowledge management

[John Hendy]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Daniel Clemente <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, and that makes sense. I just wanted to understand what you meant
by "everything has one correct place." We're on the same page now: not
copying text, but that doesn't mean something shouldn't be
referenced/linked to.

>
>> 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

This is generally what I've tried to do, though I find this is
cumbersome as I often use subtrees for more report-style/narrative
analyses of data and experiments. Thus I don't find it as simple as
your example to Brady with the PDF/HTML info, which is more basic. As
I write this, I'm thinking I could probably still do this...

For an example, let's say I'm making plastic widgets and we've been
running a series of injection mold trials with a manufacturer. Some
really novel understanding comes about with respect to part
uniformity, extruder/die temperature, cooling time, holding pressure,
etc. I think this is awesome general knowledge. But I'm documenting
our learning in an experimental report for export and upload to my
company's internal technical report repo.

My initial thought was that links this way would get in the way... but
I suppose now I could be writing along and create a link to the
nearest headline in the report, then go to some other tree and insert
a link to that headline with some note about the gist of the
understanding or keywords for the future me trying to re-find that
tidbit.

What I'm often torn about is re-writing the
learning/understanding/summary in a more general way since how it
usually arises is laden with specific details for *this*
product/project, whereas the information I want to retain is about how
I see the new understanding more generally.

Does that make sense?

John

.
>
>
> Daniel