quick correction, in the first paragraph: "... what matters is having the
*data* you need..." - when you need it :)

Marcelo.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <
celoserpa@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the end, what matters is having the date you need. I think that, we are
> so used to the document-per-file concept that we often forget that, in the
> end, it's all bytes.
>
> Let me elaborate. Having one big file for reference, that is well tagged
> can be more efficient and simpler than having several files (maybe one
> subject per file, the way I'm doing, like a wiki) and integrates better with
> the way org works.
>
> In the end, what matters is finding the data you want, and if you tag it
> well, it's easier. In my wiki-like-approach, I don't have any tags, I rely
> on rgrep to find relevant words, which works fine, but is not as good in the
> organizational sense than correctly tagging a entry and finding by tag
> (css,html,rails,etc).
>
> Let's say I have a new CSS hack that I just found out, and I'd like to take
> note of it in a place where I could easily find it again whenever I need.
>
> My current workflow when I have something to keep as a reference (long-term
> note) is this:
> - list wiki pages/remember a relevant wiki "page"
> - go to this wiki page or create another one - In this case, the page would
> be ~/org/wiki/CSS.og
> - create a top-level heading about the specific note and paste it below.
> Optionally tag the heading (I haven't been doing this).
>
> With you approach, I could just use remember, and by tagging it with
> CSS:HACK:, quicker to input, quicker to find it again (search by tag in the
> agenda).
>
> However, something in my mind still prefers keeping files in a directory,
> each for a subject. It seems cleaner. Seems like a paradigm to break :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marcelo.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> wrote:
>
>> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I liked your self-contained approach, and I will try implementing it
>> > in my workflow. Org does not stop amazing me on how flexible it is :)
>> >
>> > However, the value of having a wiki is also great IMO. It has a
>> > workflow similar to tomboy (each new org file acts as a new tomboy
>> > note) I don't have to think too much when creating a wiki page (just
>> > type TheNameOfTheSubject.org, save it and begin typing, they are in a
>> > central location (a wiki folder) and they are a great place to
>> > register knowledge data.
>> >
>> > I don't know, that might be because I used WikiDPad for a long time on
>> > my Windows days and loved its approach (Two things that org lacks as a
>> > wiki-system, which is a way to view the wiki in a tree format and
>> > automatically create links based on files in the filesystem or
>> > camelcase. Not big deal features, but something that could be
>> > contributed as a org extension - I would do it if I had the elisp
>> > knowledge to do so :))
>>
>> I used to use a wiki ... but I personally prefer the org->HTML export
>> sequence to a wiki.  All of my documents are available in org-mode
>> source.
>>
>> I don't have the need to have multiple users edit the same source (which
>> is the whole point of a wiki IMO).  Wiki's have other issues if they are
>> world editable - like spam bots and other things which I just didn't
>> want to deal with.
>>
>> I found the org-mode format with export at least as powerful as the
>> wiki's I've used.  If you community of people working on the same
>> content where some of them don't use org-mode then a wiki probably makes
>> sense.
>>
>> I just don't need it for my workflow.
>>
>> -Bernt
>>
>>
>