Re: still struggling with workflow

[Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> Christopher W. Ryan <cryan@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>
>> I've been using org-mode for, oh about a year now, and it seems like a
>> very useful tool. But I'm still struggling to understand and implement
>> effective workflows for projects, re-using bits and pieces of text.
>> 
>> For example, I have a general project related to heat wave morbidity and
>> mortality, and indoor heat index. Hopefully I can parlay it into a
>> number of distinct studies, each with IRB applications, grant
>> applications, and papers (all pdf output), and presentations (beamer pdf
>> output.)  For example, all my stuff for the first study is in a single
>> org file, HeatWaves1.org. The second project's documents will need to
>> re-use much of that material, but not all of it; and there will be some
>> new material.
>> 
>> Is it viable to keep everything related to my heat wave work, for all
>> substudies, in the one org file, and customize the output to my needs at
>> different times, via judicious use of headlines and :export tags?  Or is
>> it best to start a new org file for each substudy and copy/paste what is
>> needed from the old?
>> 
>
> I should think you can do it either way: only you can decide what the
> best way is. If you decide to go the second way, you might want to
> investigate the #+INCLUDE mechanism: maybe you can use it to reduce
> duplication.

Mind map - Freemind, maybe
==========================
Create a mind map - preferably *NOT* using Org - with Pen and Paper or
Freemind.

Mind map for the underlying form
=================================
What you describe is map of your body of work.  Now that the body of
work is complete, what you need is a map of of how the body of work
could be re-purposed.  You need an Org file for the meta-map.

Transcluding data
=================
If you are transcluding data, graphs or bibliographies then there is not
much.  They are set in stone and are not fluid.  They could be selected
and transcluded.

not same as transcluding basic forms or ideas
==============================================

Transcluding ideas (not just literary text) and delivering it in plain
text is a different beast.  We select a theme.  Narrate it with a tone.
Choose a point-of-view.  Order variously.  Emphasize selected aspects.
Leave out things on purpose.  Strive to achieve various goals.  Create a
specific impression.

Organize multi-dimensionally
============================
It seems you are trying to re-purpose your body of work to various
ends. What you need is a multi-dimensional approach.

Create an one or more Org file.  I believe it doesn't matter.  Start
with what is natural.

What is important is that you invent tags for each of the dimensions

    X dimension => technical axis => morbidity, mortality and head indices

    Y dimension => goals => grant-seeking, IRB applications

    Z dimension => Target audience => a specific conference, journal or a
    sponsoring/funding institution.


Tag items on different dimensions
==================================
Now invent headlines and try to tag each piece in each of the
independent dimensions.

Use global agenda.  Create custom queries for selection
========================================================
Use global agenda commands and complex tag queries to select the pieces
you want.

Transcribe (not transclude)
==========================

Once you have identified the source material, you can *transcribe* the
way you want or the way the audience wants or the way your employer
wants.

Use Zotero or Org-bibtex
=========================
Try Zotero.  It is the third software that I actually liked in first run
and which seemed natural - first two being Emacs and Org in that order.

Share your suggestions
======================
Mind map could be a meta-one - try to articulate how Org was helpful and
where it was a misery and what is confusing to you.  Share the result
with community and make recommendations on how Org could be improved.

Ps: Not a power-user.  But a sleepless one here.

> I'm not an org "power user", so take the following with the
> appropriately-sized grain (or boulder) of salt: I would start with a
> single file and try to organize it in a way that encourages reuse, and
> be able to do what you need to do today and possibly tomorrow; don't
> worry too much about the day after tomorrow. If/when you find that the
> process is broken, or the processing takes too long, then reorganize it,
> massively if necessary; splitting it into multiple files might be the
> more natural thing to do at that point, but with the experience you have
> gained, you will probably be able to do that more reliably than when
> starting.
>
> Obviously, this is my personal biased view, and others might disagree.
>
> Bernt Hansen's write-up (http://doc.norang.ca/org-mode.html), as well as
> some of Tom Dye's project write-ups (check the "Reproducible Research
> Examples" section of
> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/uses.html) might be good
> bedtime reading material: it's unlikely that they will answer your
> specific questions, but they might inspire you to come up with better
> solutions to your problems.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>

--