Adding tags, grouping tags

Adding tags, grouping tags

[Karl Maihofer]

I'd like to define many many tags and use numerics (1-0) as selection
keys. I want to define tags for different clients, people, gtd-contexts,
and other contexts. So I had the idea to group the tags (less than ten
tags per group) to be able to define selection keys for every tag.

I already use groups for my custom agenda views (see example below). So
when I hit C-c a, Org only shows the agenda groups (besides the default
agenda commands) and I do not get to the actual agenda commands until I
hit Q. This enables me to use the keys 1, 2, 3, 4 several times for
different agenda commands (in different groups).

Example:

(setq org-agenda-custom-commands
   '(("Q" . "Custom queries") ;; gives label to "Q"
     ("Q1" "Archive search" search ""
      ((org-agenda-files (file-expand-wildcards "~/archive/*.org"))))
     ("Q2" "Website search" search ""
      ((org-agenda-files (file-expand-wildcards "~/website/*.org"))))
     ("Q3" "Projects and Archive" search ""
      ((org-agenda-text-search-extra-files (file-expand-wildcards
"~/archive/*.org"))))
             ;; searches both projects and archive directories
     ("Q4" "Archive tags search" org-tags-view ""
      ((org-agenda-files (file-expand-wildcards "~/archive/*.org"))))
     ;; ...other commands here
      ))

Is something similar possible for adding tags?

Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Noorul Islam K M]

Karl Maihofer <ignoramus@gmx.de> writes:

> I'd like to define many many tags and use numerics (1-0) as selection
> keys. I want to define tags for different clients, people, gtd-contexts,
> and other contexts. So I had the idea to group the tags (less than ten
> tags per group) to be able to define selection keys for every tag.
>
> I already use groups for my custom agenda views (see example below). So
> when I hit C-c a, Org only shows the agenda groups (besides the default
> agenda commands) and I do not get to the actual agenda commands until I
> hit Q. This enables me to use the keys 1, 2, 3, 4 several times for
> different agenda commands (in different groups).
>
> Example:
>
> (setq org-agenda-custom-commands
>    '(("Q" . "Custom queries") ;; gives label to "Q"
>      ("Q1" "Archive search" search ""
>       ((org-agenda-files (file-expand-wildcards "~/archive/*.org"))))
>      ("Q2" "Website search" search ""
>       ((org-agenda-files (file-expand-wildcards "~/website/*.org"))))
>      ("Q3" "Projects and Archive" search ""
>       ((org-agenda-text-search-extra-files (file-expand-wildcards
> "~/archive/*.org"))))
>              ;; searches both projects and archive directories
>      ("Q4" "Archive tags search" org-tags-view ""
>       ((org-agenda-files (file-expand-wildcards "~/archive/*.org"))))
>      ;; ...other commands here
>       ))
>
> Is something similar possible for adding tags?
>

I have something like this shamelessly copied from Bernt's doc.

(setq org-tag-alist (quote ((:startgroup)
                            ("@errand" . ?e)
                            ("@office" . ?o)
                            ("@home" . ?h)
                            (:endgroup)
                            ("PHONE" . ?p)
                            ("NEXT" . ?n)
                            ("WAITING" . ?w)
                            ("HOME" . ?H)
                            ("ORG" . ?O))))

Thanks and Regards
Noorul

Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Karl Maihofer]

Noorul Islam K M <noorul@noorul.com> schrieb:
> I have something like this shamelessly copied from Bernt's doc.
>
> (setq org-tag-alist (quote ((:startgroup)
>                             ("@errand" . ?e)
>                             ("@office" . ?o)
>                             ("@home" . ?h)
>                             (:endgroup)
>                             ("PHONE" . ?p)
>                             ("NEXT" . ?n)
>                             ("WAITING" . ?w)
>                             ("HOME" . ?H)
>                             ("ORG" . ?O))))

Thanks for your reply! Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this  
"only" effect that if you add the tag @office, than add the tag @home,  
the first will be deleted automatically? This is not the kind of  
grouping what I am looking for. For me it should - by the way - be  
possible to add several tags of the same group.

I'd like to use the same selection keys for different tags. For  
example I have the following groups:

Group "people":
- Key "h" -> Holger
- Key "o" -> Otto

Group "contexts":
- Key "h" -> @home
- Key "o" -> @office

To make this possible I think it is necessary to be able to select the  
group in the first step, and then the tag you want to assign - as it  
is possible for agenda groups.

Any ideas?

Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Carsten Dominik]

On Oct 15, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Karl Maihofer wrote:

>
> Noorul Islam K M <noorul@noorul.com> schrieb:
>> I have something like this shamelessly copied from Bernt's doc.
>>
>> (setq org-tag-alist (quote ((:startgroup)
>>                            ("@errand" . ?e)
>>                            ("@office" . ?o)
>>                            ("@home" . ?h)
>>                            (:endgroup)
>>                            ("PHONE" . ?p)
>>                            ("NEXT" . ?n)
>>                            ("WAITING" . ?w)
>>                            ("HOME" . ?H)
>>                            ("ORG" . ?O))))
>
> Thanks for your reply! Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this  
> "only" effect that if you add the tag @office, than add the tag  
> @home, the first will be deleted automatically? This is not the kind  
> of grouping what I am looking for. For me it should - by the way -  
> be possible to add several tags of the same group.
>
> I'd like to use the same selection keys for different tags. For  
> example I have the following groups:
>
> Group "people":
> - Key "h" -> Holger
> - Key "o" -> Otto

I use TAB and then completion for people.  Otherwise you run into  
trouble with two people starting with the same name, trusting your  
system too far....


- Carsten

>
> Group "contexts":
> - Key "h" -> @home
> - Key "o" -> @office
>
> To make this possible I think it is necessary to be able to select  
> the group in the first step, and then the tag you want to assign -  
> as it is possible for agenda groups.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

- Carsten

Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Karl Maihofer]

Hi Carsten!

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> Group "people":
>> - Key "h" -> Holger
>> - Key "o" -> Otto
>
> I use TAB and then completion for people.  Otherwise you run into  
> trouble with two people starting with the same name, trusting your  
> system too far....

Yes, this may be a risk. But the people group was only an example. The  
main reason for me pre-defining the tags and using selection keys is  
that I use org to archive documents. I'd like to assign tags to this  
documents: (1) the names of clients the documents belong to (2) tags  
describing the contents ot the files. To make sure that I do not use  
different tags for the same thing, it is important to see a list of  
the used tags when assigning them. So I have to use pre-defined tags  
and selections keys. Do you know what I mean?

Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags etc.  
So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is  
possible for agenda commands.

Thanks!
Karl

Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

Karl Maihofer <ignoramus <at> gmx.de> writes:
> Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags etc.  
> So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is  
> possible for agenda commands.

I think that a way to define logical groups of tags (or even a hierarchy of tags
 -- say with a subtree of tag names?)  would be a very useful addition.

ilya

Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Carsten Dominik]

On Oct 15, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:

> Karl Maihofer <ignoramus <at> gmx.de> writes:
>> Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags  
>> etc.
>> So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is
>> possible for agenda commands.
>
> I think that a way to define logical groups of tags (or even a  
> hierarchy of tags
> -- say with a subtree of tag names?)  would be a very useful addition.

I can see that this could be useful - but the code is
not in any way prepared to do this, so this would be pretty hard
to implement.

- Carsten

Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Robert Horn]

On 10/16/2010 01:32 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> 
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> 
>> Karl Maihofer <ignoramus <at> gmx.de> writes:
>>> Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags etc.
>>> So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is
>>> possible for agenda commands.
>>
>> I think that a way to define logical groups of tags (or even a
>> hierarchy of tags
>> -- say with a subtree of tag names?)  would be a very useful addition.
> 
> I can see that this could be useful - but the code is
> not in any way prepared to do this, so this would be pretty hard
> to implement.
> 
Is it worth exploring use of the properties drawer?  The tags in org are
a fairly simple and thus limited structure.  The properties drawer can
have a lot more structure with a more controlled environment.

R Horn

Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags

[Carsten Dominik]

On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Robert Horn wrote:

> On 10/16/2010 01:32 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
>>
>>> Karl Maihofer <ignoramus <at> gmx.de> writes:
>>>> Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags  
>>>> etc.
>>>> So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is
>>>> possible for agenda commands.
>>>
>>> I think that a way to define logical groups of tags (or even a
>>> hierarchy of tags
>>> -- say with a subtree of tag names?)  would be a very useful  
>>> addition.
>>
>> I can see that this could be useful - but the code is
>> not in any way prepared to do this, so this would be pretty hard
>> to implement.
>>
> Is it worth exploring use of the properties drawer?  The tags in org  
> are
> a fairly simple and thus limited structure.  The properties drawer can
> have a lot more structure with a more controlled environment.

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  How  would that help?

- Carsten