Re: exported contacts problem

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Think I agree. This is close to how I use org as well. For me, org pulls
it together - I have data/information in postgres, sqlite, maildirs,
filesystem, etc. Notes, todos, journal, bookmarks and documents are in
org. I use org as the way to assemble and prsent this information and
as an authoring tool, exporting to other formats when necessary. My
planning is done in org and I use org as a literate programming
envrionment for database work (I work as a DBA), elisp and scripting.

For sql it is really great as there are few good systems for working
with sql that also support version control. Using org and git, I can get
the best of both worlds.

When it comes to programming, I tend to use more 'native' environments,
especially when a REPL is involved.

My contact management requirements are small as it is just for personal
stuff. For work, I need to use the enterprise CRM because the
information is shared across the organisation and because of the complex
legislation regarding personal information management. 


Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Neil Jerram <neiljerram@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've tried to work on contact conversion and synchronization in the past,
>> aiming to merge and unify contacts that I've built up in BBDB, Google
>> Contacts, email systems, pre-Android phones, etc.  The problematic aspect
>> was different systems using different field names and structures, e.g. one
>> with separate First Name and Last Name, and another with a combined Name
>> field; different approaches to breaking up addresses; additional arbitrary
>> notes fields; etc.
>>
>> With that in mind, I'm curious if the writers on this thread could comment
>> on:
>> 1. is this situation any better now?
>
> If by "this situation" you mean fragmentation of data formats and
> approaches, I don't think it's getting any better!
>
>> 2. if you favour using org-contacts or org-vcard, what do you see as the
>> benefit of Org as your master contact format, as opposed to say BBDB or
>> .vcf?
>
> I think something similar happens with Org as with happens with Emacs in
> general: it's such a nice environment to be working in that people want
> to move all their stuff into it. But there are some areas (contact
> management, email, large datasets) where Org just isn't going to work as
> well as a specialized tool.
>
> But Org can be an excellent *interface* to those tools, mostly through
> dynamic blocks. I've started using small sqlite databases to keep track
> of things, and dynamic blocks as sql composers/views, and it works
> great. It's very easy to play with the queries, and this is the first
> time I'm actually starting to feel comfortable with sql.
>
> I think in general Org is best used as a compositional tool for data
> drawn from elsewhere.
>
> Eric


-- 
Tim Cross