From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karl Voit Subject: Standard property proposal (was: org-jira.el... and Org conventions (Bastien, Carsten and all)) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:34:54 +0100 Message-ID: <2012-01-04T00-22-49@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> References: <86hb0ez4qr.fsf@gmail.com> <80ipkt6wfe.fsf@somewhere.org> Reply-To: news1142@Karl-Voit.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59186) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiDsw-0005YA-KF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:35:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiDsu-0002CQ-8N for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:35:14 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58525) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiDst-0002CA-SV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:35:12 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiDsr-0005gp-BX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:35:09 +0100 Received: from mail.michael-prokop.at ([88.198.6.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:35:09 +0100 Received: from news1142 by mail.michael-prokop.at with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:35:09 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi! * Sebastien Vauban 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