Re: [O] org-mode for knowledge management

[Daniel Clemente]

> […]
> 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.

  I find it very different to write notes for yourself and to write for an 
audience. In a report you need to follow a structure, you need to choose a 
particular natural language, you need to explain things that might be obvious 
for you, you cannot change topic, … Whereas in notes, you're free. Therefore I 
think it makes sense to have two different places for both.


> 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.

  … However, I don't consider that rewriting (specific→general) you mention as 
a necessary task or a burden (I don't do it), because in your notes (generic 
knowledge) you can simply refer to the specific one (e.g.: „see what I did in 
this case ([[link_to_the_report]])“.). A header with 1 or 2 or N links to 
specific reports is a good start before continue focusing on other 
generic-knowledge topics.
  So you decide where you will work the most (either in the specific reports or 
in the generic knowledge) and then the other can refer to it.
  I do it like that. E.g. I'm not writing in my generic notes a „code style 
guide“ because I did it already in project X, so I add knowledge in 
projectX.org and just link to it. If some particular knowledge grows too big 
for that projectX_code_style, I develop it in my generic notes (another file, 
project-unrelated).


> >   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.
> 

  Note that:
- I don't suggest you abuse links and link every header. You can link to 
interesting topics. Like in Wikipedia: you /could/ link every word, but it 
makes sense to link only interesting information (only: in WP they link too 
much because they don't know what exactly will be interesting to the reader; 
but in your notes, you know already which links will you need in the future).
- In my example, the link meant „this is the same as that“, and I think this is 
always a basic concept, even in complex scenarios. In your case, your link may 
mean something different (like: „this heading is a specific wording of that 
knowledge“)
- That header with empty contents that says „for this, don't look here but look 
there: [[there]]“ is only one line and doesn't get in the way. And you use it 
only when you need it (e.g. when you ended in the wrong place after a text 
search and want to link to the good one for the next time).