On 02/03/16 10:15, Bingo UV wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:15:03 -0700
luke call <luke...@onemodel.org> wrote:
I'm not org-mode power-user but what I recall from my use years ago
is that I moved away because of the # of keystrokes to do operations,
having to open different files for different topics, and that one
single set of notes couldn't be in more than one place.
While I am no authority, I will present some information and
evidence about why one thing should be only in one place if its
purpose is consumption by human beings. It also matches my
personal experience - your mileage may vary:
https://blog.evernote.com/blog/2015/12/11/evernote-and-the-brain-designing-creativity-workflows/
....
From this, I gather that tools promoting explicitly
preemptive inter-connection between knowledge pieces like this
one-model seems to be are not likely the best uses of
one's own brain. Even attempts at exquisite tagging and
cross-referencing within emacs org-mode are ill-advised.
Thanks for that comment and the link to his very thoughtful article. So,
about multiple connections to the same thing and modeling knowledge with
org-mode or any tool. I think the author makes a good case for using
such connections, just not with tags.
In real life, the same entity is relevant to many contexts, and in
representation it is useful to allow easy connections to & from those
contexts. For example, a entity representing a physical book is
relevant to and can be thought of in connection with its location, its
publisher, owner, topic, contents, author, history, physical properties
(newtonian physics...), purchase history, seller, account, book
borrowers, etc. Each of those things in turn has rich data and
associations in the real world. I think it usually far best not to
duplicate the info about any entity or the knowledge of its existence in
multiple places, because that leads to duplicate work and loss of
utility, such as the ability to get the most out of all our knowledge,
such as for various kinds of computation & rich queries. This is
fundamental in SQL theory for similar reasons.
(I see his point about tags, but partly disagree with the article author
about those, because I use such thing with the intent to create all the
ones I might think of using for a search, so it works in reverse: make
the tag help me as I am, *not* make me work to remember the tag (who is
servant vs. master). And when making associations, use all those that
work best for you. Or just full-text search and periodic (hopefully
easy/efficient) reorganization of ideas that are changing.)
Human memory improvement discussion often also recommends improving
memory by creating associations. For me at least, any tool that is to be
an aid to my mind benefits by allowing the same, so they work together
well. In practice I go to the same entity by varying paths, depending on
circumstance.
I do like the author's five numbered points (based on some skim & some
reading). He likes mind-maps, for example, which org-mode can
approximate and OM subsumes (though not yet with diagrams: I'd like OM
to generate those someday). One has to decide what resonates,
intuitively, as the author says. In my efforts, I'm optimizing now for
comprehensiveness and simplicity, and (hopefully very soon) for
collaboration.
My answer to his desired "middle path" is to consider what *is* and
model that, rather than creating paragraphs! Instead, use entities with
properties and relations, updating as understanding improves, which
*really* helps with the problem of "loading and unloading" (I like how
he put that). I strongly feel as a knowledge worker that I have a core
process of systematic improvement and all this is central to it. *To
model reality is the best way to work toward learning what is, _and_ to
achieve his goals in optimizing "note design"* and to find what he calls
"intelligent emergence": it cannot come optimally from being really good
at managing huge piles of words, but rather managing knowledge which has
one representation which we call words, others of images or animation,
and still others of whatever we can create.
So an aim is to let recorded knowledge match reality as far as can be
practical, with efficiency.
Thanks again for bringing this up.
-Luke
