On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> wrote: > John Hendy <jw.he...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Daniel Clemente <n142...@gmail.com> 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] > >
