* John Tait <johngt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all Hi!
> Some time ago I floated a "tag hierarchy" idea for org-mode. It didn't > gain much interest (through I received some very kind replies). > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2011-03/msg01393.html Wow, cool idea and I totally agree regarding the usefulness of this featurewish. sidemark: I'm kinda biased about tags, hierarchies, controlled vocabularies, personal information management with files, ... since these are things I do research with [1]. > The problem I'm trying to solve is that, in big publishing projects, > the number of tags can grow and might eventually need to be managed > outside org-mode. (I'm already keeping lists of my tags inside > org-mode tables.) > > What I would love to do is build a simple taxonomy of tags from a > controlled vocabulary -- that I can manage entirely inside org-mode. You do not need that many tags to provide meaningful examples that justify this feature. Take for example following tags I am using: location based tags: * Graz (the city where I live) * TUGraz (where I work) * flat (where I actually do work too :-) * out-of-town * parents (not in Graz) action based tags: * fitness * nonComputer * communication * errands With your proposed feature I could manage to express following dependencies: Graz > TUGraz (TUGraz is in Graz) Graz > flat (my flat is in Graz) So when I create an agenda view with «Graz» I might as well see entries which are tagged with «TUGraz» since this is a subset of «Graz». out-of-town | Graz (out-of-town is not in Graz) I am not sure if this OR condition is of any use here. out-of-town > parents (my parents are out-of-town) Agenda views related to out-of-town should include things I have to manage at my parents place. nonComputer > fitness (doing sports is not computer related) I do not count Wii games as sports :-) Agenda views related to nonComputer stuff should also list fitness items as well. Graz > errands (I usually buy stuff in town) fitness ! flat (I never do actual sport in my flat) Is there a need for explicit negation? Looking forward to a mechanism to define (sub)sets of tags in order to simplify queries matching tags. Because this is what I do think it possibly means: «C-c a m +Graz|+flat» does provide the combined sets of «Graz» and «flat» for the purpose of agenda views. (I am not using (filtered) export yet) 1. http://tagstore.org -- Karl Voit
