Donate | Contact | Search

evernote has conceptual overlap with OM, but OM is Free & to be *computable*. Also, you decide where to save your data, what to share or import, etc.

• This is a quote about OM vs. evernote, in the context of a longer
  discussion comparing OM to emacs org-mode.
  
  [ http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/104787 ]
  
  On 02/03/16 10:15, Bingo UV wrote:
  > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:15:03 -0700
  > luke call <luke350 <at> onemodel.org> wrote:
  >
  >> I'm not org-mode power-user but what I recall from my use years ago
  >> is that I moved away because of the # of keystrokes to do operations,
  >> having to open different files for different topics, and that one
  >> single set of notes couldn't be in more than one place.
  >
  >     While I am no authority, I will present some information and
  >     evidence about why one thing should be only in one place if its
  >     purpose is consumption by human beings. It also matches my
  >     personal experience - your mileage may vary:
  >
  > https://blog.evernote.com/blog/2015/12/11/evernote-and-the-brain-designing-creativity-workflows/
  > ....
  >  From this, I gather that tools promoting explicitly
  > preemptive inter-connection between knowledge pieces like this
  > one-model seems to be are not likely the best uses of
  > one's own brain. Even attempts at exquisite tagging and
  > cross-referencing within emacs org-mode are ill-advised.
  
  Thanks for that comment and the link to his very thoughtful article. So, 
  about multiple connections to the same thing and modeling knowledge with 
  org-mode or any tool.  I think the author makes a good case for  using 
  such connections, just not with tags.
  
  In real life, the same entity is relevant to many contexts, and in 
  representation it is useful to allow easy connections to & from those 
  contexts.  For example, a entity representing a physical book is 
  relevant to and can be thought of in connection with its location, its 
  publisher, owner, topic, contents, author,  history, physical properties 
  (newtonian physics...), purchase history, seller, account, book 
  borrowers, etc.  Each of those things in turn has rich data and 
  associations in the real world.  I think it usually far best not to 
  duplicate the info about any entity or the knowledge of its existence in 
  multiple places, because that leads to duplicate work and loss of 
  utility, such as the ability to get the most out of all our knowledge, 
  such as for various kinds of computation & rich queries.  This is 
  fundamental in SQL theory for similar reasons.
  
  (I see his point about tags, but partly disagree with the article author 
  about those, because I use such thing with the intent to create all the 
  ones I might think of using for a search, so it works in reverse: make 
  the tag help me as I am, *not* make me work to remember the tag (who is 
  servant vs. master).  And when making associations, use all those that 
  work best for you.  Or just full-text search and periodic (hopefully 
  easy/efficient) reorganization of ideas that are changing.)
  
  Human memory improvement discussion often also recommends improving 
  memory by creating associations. For me at least, any tool that is to be 
  an aid to my mind benefits by allowing the same, so they work together 
  well. In practice I go to the same entity by varying paths, depending on 
  circumstance.
  
  I do like the author's five numbered points (based on some skim & some 
  reading).  He likes mind-maps, for example, which org-mode can 
  approximate and OM subsumes (though not yet with diagrams: I'd like OM 
  to generate those someday).  One has to decide what resonates, 
  intuitively, as the author says.  In my efforts, I'm optimizing now for 
  comprehensiveness and simplicity, and (hopefully very soon) for 
  collaboration.
  
  My answer to his desired "middle path" is to consider what *is* and 
  model that, rather than creating paragraphs!  Instead, use entities with 
  properties and relations, updating as understanding improves, which 
  *really* helps with the problem of "loading and unloading" (I like how 
  he put that).  I strongly feel as a knowledge worker that I have a core 
  process of systematic improvement and all this is central to it.  *To 
  model reality is the best way to work toward learning what is, _and_ to 
  achieve his goals in optimizing "note design"* and to find what he calls 
  "intelligent emergence": it cannot come optimally from being really good 
  at managing huge piles of words, but rather managing knowledge which has 
  one representation which we call words, others of images or animation, 
  and still others of whatever we can create.
  
  So an aim is to let recorded knowledge match reality as far as can be 
  practical, with efficiency.
  
  Thanks again for bringing this up.
  -Luke