Re: One vs many directories

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 5:16 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de>, "Texas Cyberthal" 
> <texas.cyberthal@gmail.com>, "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: One vs many directories
>
> * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-11-24 10:57]:
> > > I find it entertaining for now. Now, what is exomind?
> >
> > Unless I misunderstood, Jean referred to "external brain" concept:
> > - https://beepb00p.xyz/exobrain/
>
> The more you send me reference more I discover other set of people
> doing same what I am doing. Since I have implemented central meta
> level organization it is moving rapidly, everthing gets sorted. It
> develops by itself and is rapidly accessible.

Believing that only you think a certain way is a big mistake.

> That website I have to mirror locally to pick ideas and learn from
> others. Mirroring I do with:
>
> $ wget -Emk http://example.com
>
> As that command replaces all hyperlinks to local hyperlinks. That
> person advanced in organization of things. I stick to few principles
> and just design it by principles.
>
> Design works rapidly. Few Emacs Lisp functions and access to reports
> listed in Emacs Buffers and integration with other tools.
>
> With one function and one PostgreSQL table defined in 3 minutes I get
> rudimentary backup and version system for any column values that I am
> editing in the database. If I edit note, the note is versioned
> (previous version stored) before I start editing it. Principles I am
> following are basics what programmers like, to minimize or eliminate
> repetitions and efforts to achieve the goal.
>
> Person above have extracted or exported its own database of hyperlinks
> to hyperdocuments. My side I have made for now Org export of any
> subtree or the whole dynamic knowledge repository. There are many
> things to go. In Emacs development version all kinds of hyperlinks can
> get their handlers like gopher:// gemini:// message: tel: sms: and
> htat will be very helpful.
>
> No, I do not use "exobrain" as a term. I rather lean on Engelbart's
> terminology and follow his principles as we are very late to implement
> what was envisioned back in 1968 and before. It is 52 years already.
>
> And many more years since Memex has been invented:
>
> Memex
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex
>
> As author said: "The memex device as described by Bush "would use
> microfilm storage, dry photography, and analog computing to give
> postwar scholars access to a huge, indexed repository of knowledge any
> section of which could be called up with a few keystrokes."
>
> And that is exactly what I am creating here to have anything called up
> with few keystrokes and to be able to share files with individuals or
> groups of people without more thinking but just designated what to be
> done.
>
> Have group of 5 people to share notes with? Just find the designated
> group and click share. Computer would handle the rest, maybe send
> files by emails individually, maybe inform people by SMS, maybe upload
> files and share password protected hyperlinks with those people.
>
> Integration is another keyword I like to follow. Android principle of
> sharing is pretty much based on integration. We have all the small
> functions around us only not well integrated with their relations that
> concern human problems.
>
> We have files on file system which we cannot easily share with groups
> or people we want. Address books are all sparse, one is in this email
> client, one is separate, one is on the mobile device, another email
> client does not synchronize, and so on. I have forgotten this long
> ago and use central address book from where everything derive:
>
> - no Google, clouds, etc. that is very insecure. Do not give contacts
>   to Google, there are hundreds of thousands of staff members there
>   and no guarantee whatsoever that they will not read it.
>
> - keeping contacts on my computers. I have already spent money for
>   hard disk, there is enough space
>
> - exporting contacts from central database and importing to email
>   clients, mobile devices, this way everything is synchronized.
>
> How quickly can GNU/Linux user share a file with somebody?
>
> - locate the file by using hierarchical browsing. If file system is a
>   mess, this alone may take some time
>
> - open up email reader
>
> - find that email address. If it is in the email reader already it is
>   good. But it could be in the phone. It could be on paper, or on
>   business card. Where is it? Maybe calling person? But where is the
>   phone number? On first phone, second phone... if all is synchronized
>   maybe is easier to find.
>
> - attach the file
>
> - send the file.
>
> But then sending SMS or calling in the same time does not
> work. The above process is not well integrated.
>
> It could work like this:
>
> - user just thinks of what has to be shared with other person, types
>   the terms related to the thought
>
> - locates the file and press share
>
> - locates the user and press enter. FINISHED
>
> That would be better integration. Even better it would be if user can
> choose the automated workflow option:
>
> 1. send the file, automatically record that file has been sent to
>    specific user. Tell user automatically how many files are attached
>    and attach annotation belonging to the file as body of the email or
>    any instructions.
>
> 2. in the same time inform the user by SMS that file has been sent and
>    record that SMS have been sent. Software like kdeconnect, gnokii
>    can be used for it.
>
> 3. within 1 hour, or other period of time, computer asks to initiate
>    the call to the user to follow up about the file sent and maybe
>    nudges few times and records the action. Software like termux tools
>    can be used for it.
>
> My first big surprise with Org was that there was no possibility to
> assign the task to other person and send that task! I actually could
> not believe that it was meant for single person or personal tasks and
> notes. Then I made the function to share the task quickly to any
> person assigned to the task. If person is assigned, task is sent to
> the person. If no person is assigned then I choose to which person to
> send it. This includes also groups of people.
>
> > - 
> > https://zettelkasten.de/posts/extend-your-mind-and-memory-with-a-zettelkasten/
>
> That is similar idea of organizing. There is claim that one shall
> forget about categories and rather use tags. I think that using any
> types of attributes is better and using more attributes helps in
> quicker location.
>
> > - https://github.com/novoid/Memacs
>
> I have installed it and not yet used it. I would not like having too
> many tools on file system to manage information. There are too many
> memacs tools made for console. In general I am tracking all SMS sent
> from phones to other people, they are automatically inserted into
> corresponding people's objects. Then I know which people received
> what. Phone calls can be tracked too. Phone calls can be
> recorded. Sales and marketing departments need that. I am using now
> only principles from Memacs and implement some of them in Emacs
> Lisp. As I like integration I do not like external tools, but the
> dynanic knowledge repository must be usable externally without
> Emacs.
>
> That becomes very easy by expanding the whole tree of notes into the
> file system from time to time and generating meanings for symlinks
> that point to fixed locations on file system.
>
> The centralized subtrees or nodes of my dynamic knowledge repository
> can be moved easily from one parent node to other parent node. This is
> because human must sort things properly. But if such are pointing to
> files on file system those files never change. Meaning and relations
> can change but file location should not change. Directories are more
> static then files. They would never change. Files if not indexed but
> located in the archive could maybe change or get updated.
>
> Git repository could get updated but its directory need never change
> in the future.
>
> Let us say there are many PDFs to be indexed and accessed through
> semantics. The PDF file name could change but access to PDF file need
> never change. Renaming PDF file need not change access to PDF file in
> other word there is no need to rename it twice, it can remain in the
> database and get accessed automatically. But that requires directory
> to be static, or it requires md5sum of the file to be
> static. Something must be static that file can be found by the
> system. Best is when file is under specific unique ID that never
> changes. Then everything becomes unique and clear. And symlink can be
> automatically generated:
>
> ~/hyperscope/1/2/3/432.pdf would be file
>
> ~/hyperscope/1/2/3/Knowledge.pdf would be symlink to 432.pdf
> automatically generated and from time to time updated if there were
> many changes in the database.
>
> The Org hyperlink to the file could point to:
> ~/hyperscope/1/2/3/432.pdf because file location is this way static
> and will never change.
>
> But the Org hyperlink could as well point to meta level hyperlink
> (hyperscope 432) as that would open the file no matter where is the
> location.
>
> And if file is on remote server, something like
>
> [[PDF File][(hyperscope 432 2)]]
>
> would then work quite well. As this type of dynamic knowledge
> repository is multi user automatically as database is multi user. It
> means files can be accessed from all over the world and groupware
> collaboration becomes trivial as PostgreSQL is networked database.
>
> Now for the user accessing the specific database then the hyperlink
> can be just (hyperscope 432) and user who is remote could say by
> activating the hyperlink that remote user likes to have the
> file.
>
> Program must know if user is local or remote. If user is remote the
> file can be sent by email, it could be automatically encrypted and
> sent, encrypted and uploaded to web server, or uploaded to web server
> with password encrypted access or without. Any information can be
> protected and not all information need to be shown on public
> webservers.
>
> Maybe it becomes better to use the URI like:
> hyperscope://user@example.com:432
>
> whereby 432 would not indicate the database port but rather the ID of
> the hyperdocument to be activated or accessed. user@example.com would
> have relation to the actual username, password, hostname, database
> name and port on the user's own system and program installed as such
> without local database. Maybe port could be optional as multiple ports
> could be on the same hostname.
>
> That would create unique access to specific domain and specific user
> on remote hyperscope server. It becomes possible to securely share and
> access files or do any action on such files by using the groupware
> features.
>
> The big difference with the WWW is that system is structured and
> offers liberty on how to access files and what to do with the system.
>
> User may remotely invoke emails to be sent to groups of people. This
> is not what WWW offers by default.
>
> User could remotely edit Org file only by using the database. Org file
> need not be located on the file system. And yet such Org file can be
> automatically saved on the file system or sent to other people.
>
> Locating 4-5 or more people becomes possible, marking of them and
> quick export to Org file becomes possible. Then user may invoke
> further actions such as visiting people, negotiating, calling people,
> sending them information by post, sending SMS to people.
>
> When backed up by well networked database it becomes multi user
> collaborative meta level Org system.
>
> > - https://blog.jethro.dev/posts/org_mode_workflow_preview/
>
> I have captured that one for later research. Small details and notes
> do matter when creating some new useful features.
>
> Jean
>
>