Hi! * Sebastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> 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