> […] > uniformity, extruder/die temperature, cooling time, holding pressure, > etc. I think this is awesome general knowledge. But I'm documenting > our learning in an experimental report for export and upload to my > company's internal technical report repo.
I find it very different to write notes for yourself and to write for an audience. In a report you need to follow a structure, you need to choose a particular natural language, you need to explain things that might be obvious for you, you cannot change topic, … Whereas in notes, you're free. Therefore I think it makes sense to have two different places for both. > What I'm often torn about is re-writing the > learning/understanding/summary in a more general way since how it > usually arises is laden with specific details for *this* > product/project, whereas the information I want to retain is about how > I see the new understanding more generally. … However, I don't consider that rewriting (specific→general) you mention as a necessary task or a burden (I don't do it), because in your notes (generic knowledge) you can simply refer to the specific one (e.g.: „see what I did in this case ([[link_to_the_report]])“.). A header with 1 or 2 or N links to specific reports is a good start before continue focusing on other generic-knowledge topics. So you decide where you will work the most (either in the specific reports or in the generic knowledge) and then the other can refer to it. I do it like that. E.g. I'm not writing in my generic notes a „code style guide“ because I did it already in project X, so I add knowledge in projectX.org and just link to it. If some particular knowledge grows too big for that projectX_code_style, I develop it in my generic notes (another file, project-unrelated). > > Of course copy+paste is a nightmare to maintain (see: DRY). I am still > > forced to do it with some org tables which do complex calculations. I think > > org offers dynamic tables to apply the same process to different data > > sources, but it gets complex. I think there's no such thing as „templates“ > > where you change the base one and all uses of it (in all files) are > > automatically updated. > > > > About links: in org-mode they all look the same, but semantically there > > are many types, like: > > - *is-a*: „this is a concrete implementation of [[that generic knowledge]]“ > > - *related*: „related to this is: [[that]]“ > > - *same-as*: „this and [[that]] are exactly the same topic, so write only > > under that header, not here“ ← this is poor man's transclusion, or more > > like „symbolic links“ in ext4. With it, a header seems to be present in > > many places at the same time; in reality the content is only in one place > > and the rest are links. The good thing is, it doesn't really matter /where/ > > exactly is that tree, because you'll find it anyway by following maximum 1 > > link. X can link to Y, or Y can link the X; what's important is that > > reading both X or Y you'll find exactly the same thing (not copy+pasted > > contents). > > > > So, it's all about finding a manual algorithm to organize things > > This is generally what I've tried to do, though I find this is > cumbersome as I often use subtrees for more report-style/narrative > analyses of data and experiments. Thus I don't find it as simple as > your example to Brady with the PDF/HTML info, which is more basic. As > I write this, I'm thinking I could probably still do this... > > For an example, let's say I'm making plastic widgets and we've been > running a series of injection mold trials with a manufacturer. Some > really novel understanding comes about with respect to part > uniformity, extruder/die temperature, cooling time, holding pressure, > etc. I think this is awesome general knowledge. But I'm documenting > our learning in an experimental report for export and upload to my > company's internal technical report repo. > > My initial thought was that links this way would get in the way... but > I suppose now I could be writing along and create a link to the > nearest headline in the report, then go to some other tree and insert > a link to that headline with some note about the gist of the > understanding or keywords for the future me trying to re-find that > tidbit. > Note that: - I don't suggest you abuse links and link every header. You can link to interesting topics. Like in Wikipedia: you /could/ link every word, but it makes sense to link only interesting information (only: in WP they link too much because they don't know what exactly will be interesting to the reader; but in your notes, you know already which links will you need in the future). - In my example, the link meant „this is the same as that“, and I think this is always a basic concept, even in complex scenarios. In your case, your link may mean something different (like: „this heading is a specific wording of that knowledge“) - That header with empty contents that says „for this, don't look here but look there: [[there]]“ is only one line and doesn't get in the way. And you use it only when you need it (e.g. when you ended in the wrong place after a text search and want to link to the good one for the next time).
