Re: [O] org-mode for knowledge management

[Eric Abrahamsen]

John Hendy <address@hidden> writes:

> 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 guess my assumption is that the "interesting finding" bit would be its
own heading, and would *not* live in the project_a subtree at all, but
rather in a different subtree that was dedicated to whatever the "theme"
is. So the heading for the experiment would just be about the experiment
itself, and you'd make a new "note" about the generally-useful finding
elsewhere.

Perhaps both links and tags are what you're after then: you could leave
a link to the general finding inside "experiment about blah" (to remind
yourself you took that note), but also use the tags to open Agendas on
both project and theme, so you can see all the relevant information in
one place.

Dunno!

> 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]
>>
>>