Re: Link type in org-mode, but with org-roam ?

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Cletip Cletip <clement020302@gmail.com> [2023-02-21 19:20]:
> I am not thinking in advance about "queryable" information. I am
> > thinking of structure, or types, and do not worry of future. All
> > types, columns, anything is automatically capable to be queried.

Solely the above paragraph is not giving me enough information. It is
general statement. In every Emacs buffer anything is automatically
capable to be queried. One can search by using regular expressions and
there is plethora of other ways to find information. Similarly one can
tell that for many other systems. I find almost anything in any text
by using `ed' the standard text editor.

I am trying to understand what you mean with it, and it that is
something that I have not described above.

> I was talking about my system which was made with org-roam, so the
> information stored in the notes is in plain text. But, to make them
> queryable, I have to add "metadata" as said before with key-value.

Okay, I understand. Meta data is normally not visible or can be made
visible, but is not part of the text, but could be part of Org
heading, like Org properties or tags. Including that all words and
sentence can also be considered part of it.

> So I'm using a database, but I don't want to bother thinking about
> how I can add new information to my system. You, you need to think
> about "what describes this information?" 

I cannot see practical example, so I cannot understand.

I cannot even know if your description of what I think fits to what I
think that I think... hmm, let me see. Do I really think about "What
describes this information"? 

When I enter document in the Dynamic Knowledge Repository, then I name
it. In that sense I think of "what describes this information", as I
have to describe it, sort it, under some set, which is another way of
describing it, maybe relate to people, and so on.

However, when you write any text, you are "describing this
information". I am trying to understand what you mean and how do you
mean of doing things "without describing information".

> If it's someone, you create a new table (not sure if this is this
> term to use) to hold that knowledge.  I don't want to think about
> that, I just want to put the information in and find it without
> thinking about tables.

Yes, database system like GeDaFe is designed for user to create new
table. Though that is not happening too often. 

If you only work with text, you need not special database, as your
file system is enough. 

Org is prime example how text may be structured and mimic database
features.

> > Because of the design of tables, and conditional correct entries into
> > the database, it becomes very easy to find for example "POST BOX"
> > address of all people in Mwanza city.
> 
> Here, everything is queryable, because you have already thought of
> all the possible cases that could happen. In my system, I decided to
> do the opposite: why think of a particular case if I'm not even sure
> I'm doing it?

It is true that by thinking in advance, one can get better results.

For example, one starts creating separate table columns for:

- first name
- middle names
- last name

then I realized, people have nick names, what else, so I added another
column like:

- other names, as array that can hold any number of names

then people have their titles, so you add "title" column.

But then I realize people have different relationships, may have
different roles in different organizations and thus different titles,
so I added "people relationship" table, in which "titles" are
described individually. 

And then how to search for that information? PostgreSQL full text
search does that. 

Mastering PostgreSQL Tools: Full-Text Search and Phrase Search - Compose Articles:
https://compose.com/articles/mastering-postgresql-tools-full-text-search-and-phrase-search/

So then anything may be queried with simple search, as long as all
those fields are updated for full text search:

Possible queries could be:

- baker in Monaco
- Joe, baker
- Joe director Monaco

and so on, and they could lead to same person.

> But our goals are not the same, you have to have a solid system for
> several people, I do something much more personal. So, it's ok.

I will understand when you show me example.

> I wanted to say that adding a new type of information can be time
> consuming: you have to add the table, and above all check that
> another table does not already exist to do the same thing.

That is not time consuming:

- adding new table is maybe 1 minute

- I never check if other table do the same thing, but I could start
  making new table to improve previous work

Adding tables is rapid on my side. 

> So you need excellent documentation, hoping that the system itself
> doesn't become too "cluttered" for the user.

I need documentation, I have little of it. It is just as Org, it needs
a lot of documentation for people to use it.

> For your purpose, yes. For mine, no. I think that every thing that
> has to have a special presentation / type in the database is an
> exception: the user has to think / look that, if he wants to add a
> contact, he has to look for the type "contact".

If I wish to add contact, I click with mouse, or do something like 

C-c p N - for new contact, and enter it. I am asked few questions, and
it is entered.

And same in Org, some information I like to enter by using
templates. I did not like creating empty Org, because I had too many
people to deal with. So when I create a person, I had single click to
create the Org file with the name and personal information of that
person, and tasks, and table for expenses, and final calculation of
cash account. 

In Org we have to look for tags, properties, heading, those are all
types. Using it as really plain text is possible, but not as
beneficial. Types are useful in computing to sort information better. 

> I would like my system to detect by itself that when I give a
> node/heading org-mode as title "A-name A-forname", it understands by
> itself that it is a contact.

For computer, without designation of a type, it will never get that
type of intelligence.

When I am entering new name of person, if I enter ">" before the name,
that means that names is not individual name and computer asks me if
it is company or list of people, or maybe government office, what it
is. But it is not individual.

User must somehow designate for computer that heading is "contact". 

> And if I put a phone number underneath, I can just ask him "give me
> the phone number of X", and he gives it to me correctly.

Good, that is how I think computers should be today. But they are not.

> I repeat because I don't want to offend you: we don't have the same
> goals, so it is normal that our methods are different.

You strive same thing, and I don't understand you, so I can't tell
anything so fast as you can.

> On the other hand, I would very much like to test your method, it
> intrigues and interests me a lot.

Before anything, I have to understand what you wish to achieve. What
is the purpose for which you devise methods?

> > > Or we do something extremely flexible, exactly like a big
> > > org-mode file where we just put the information, and the user
> > > can use his method (grep for example).
> 
> For single user that may be fine. For collaborative work, multi-user
> > access is not, or sharing of information, it is not. That is why Org
> > development strive to provide more and more structure, something I
> > said, they try to make it like a database, but because there is no
> > structure, it becomes the never ending story of milions of bugs.
> 
> 
> I agree with you, although I don't know if the goal of the org-mode
> developers is to do this.

It is not, as it was made be user who was not thinking of
collaboration, group or team work, sharing with the world. Org is
designed to be very personal. 

Let us say for collaborative editing in Emacs, one could use `crdt'
package together with Org mode, and multiple people can edit it over
network.

> > In my work I use meta level. First I am liberated from Org mode, or
> > any kind of mode. And I like flexibility to mix various markups. I can
> > use universal hyperlinks that convert themselves into necessary
> > markup. I don't like being dependent on some "mode".
> 
> > If markup is Org, hyperlink will become Org hyperlink, if markup is
> > Markdown, hyperlink will become Markdown link, if it is text, it will
> > be shown in text. Why do I need to record 3 versions of same document,
> > better one, which can be just represented in different way.
> 
> After that, it's the same for org-mode, it can export in a lot of formats,
> so in the end you're just adding an extra layer of abstraction to export to
> org-mode.

No, I don't think that tying people to Org mode for sake of Org mode
is good, rather using Org for what it is good. My purpose is not at
all "Org mode" but that human can get educated easier or conduct
tasks, or that we can finalize plans, programs and projects. 

One important task in management is handling cash accounts of people
working for us. Imagine columns like Transaction ID, description, name
of account money comes from, name of account money goes to, debit
amount, credit amount, balance. It may fit, or may not fit in Org, I
get some problems with it. So I used Asciidoctor to generate account
statements. But then I think, I have to use Pango markup and `paps'
command, or LaTeX directly, for reasons that I wish various fields be
shown to user. Org cannot handle LaTeX tables directly well, so I
can't use that markup. I can't see the information by using Org
tables! Asciidoc works really well for that purpose. I am sure that
direct LaTeX can do that without problems as well. So I will use
any method that works and mix it in a mixed object Hyperdocument.

dov/paps: A text to postscript converter through pango:
https://github.com/dov/paps

> Yes, today, no artificial intelligence will be able to replace your
> application entirely. The problem is that we don't realise how advanced
> these areas are. I'm in my third year of computer science, and chatGPT is
> able to do my first two years of classes. I'm already at a loss, and I'm
> not even in the job market, and I know it.

Alright. I hope you are not using ChatGPT to make works that pretend
to be your mind's work, as that could be plagiarism.

In fact, I do not now if your writing is of human or ChatGPT... 

> The only thing I have is my reasoning, which I hope AI is not
> capable of. You can't pretend that your system, or mine of course,
> won't be revolutionised by the presence of a new AI capable of doing
> almost everything you've planned, and perhaps without writing an
> extra line of code on your part to add a new feature.  And this is
> frustrating, but that's the way it is.

I wish it could integrate things. ChatGPT does not work by means of
the real understanding. It works by reconstructing some information,
and relating information to each other. Computer does not understand
information, it just gives to human an illusion that it does. 

> I don't want to defend AI, I just maybe want to hold you accountable
> to learn about these areas and the main advances so that you don't
> do something obsolete as soon as it comes out, but rather use these
> tools to improve your goal.

I have no means to understand you, and to use tools which I do not
have as free software. If it free software, do you hav example.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/