[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[O] Standard property proposal (was: org-jira.el... and Org conventions

From: Karl Voit
Subject: [O] Standard property proposal (was: org-jira.el... and Org conventions (Bastien, Carsten and all))
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:34:54 +0100
User-agent: slrn/0.9.9 (Linux)


* Sebastien Vauban <address@hidden> wrote:
> But this triggers, for me, another "concern" which is the very wide variety of
> ways to define the same thing.

Totally agree to that.

> So, my point is: wouldn't it be better if we proposed standard properties in
> Org (in the manual), and implemented mappings in the Org "integration"
> packages (org-jira, org-taskjuggler, org-redmine and the like)?
> So, say for example that, from now on, it's more standard in Org to use
> "Assignee" (or anything else) for representing who's assigned a task, and have
> every package map the property "Assignee" to whatever keyword used in external
> tools for representing that concept?

I'd say that this issue is a HUGE one for the future of Org-mode. It
is ubiquitous to users all over. I myself had troubles adopting
org-contacts[1][2] because of only one single email property defined. 

When I started developing software that *massively* converts user
data into Org-mode format[3], I felt this strange itch, whether my
property definitions are well chosen or not ...

I *love* the fact that Org-mode is so lightweight and so heavy the
same time - just as the user wants it.

But using conventions also has some drawbacks. Whenever someone
wants to define a certain format with properties for example, she
has to define her own way. If there is an Org-mode extension using
similar data, users woun't notice until some data show up on this
list and another Org-mode user is adding a hint.

So a free-to-use recommendation list of standard properties would be
*very* fine.

Part of my research work is in the field of information architecture
for personal information management. If I can be of any help in some
kind of discussion and definition process, I'd be glad.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/47478
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/45347
[3] https://github.com/novoid/Memacs

Karl Voit

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]