I wonder why so many of us here (and elsewhere on the internet for other subjects) are so obsessed with terminology when organizing. So curious!
1 Like
This discussion is further evidence, if it were needed, that naming things is hard!
I’m not convinced by ‘instance’ as it will be unfamiliar to people who haven’t been exposed to object oriented programming.
We could consider ‘repository’ but it implies all documents are kept in the same place.
What about “group” (“group of areas”)?
I share this exact sentiment.
I don’t mind ‘instance’, but I think it’ll be weird for non-nerds.
The Chosen Word, when it arrives, needs to be spoken really nicely as a noun.
“Now when you review your system…” 
“Now when you review your group…” 
For me, at least.
Love the ideas though, there are no bad ideas, keep 'em coming please!
This is the fun bit. 
I should state my goals clearly. I am striving for terms that are:
- Unambiguous.
- ‘Project’ was ambiguous.
- Ideally these terms will be unambiguous generally, but at the very least in the context of organising your stuff.
- Understandable.
- To everybody.
- I’m specifically aiming JD at ‘normal people’. The internet is already full of ways to organise your stuff if you’re a nerd.
- Fluid in a sentence.
- Really important.
- These terms need to write and speak naturally.
That might be it?
I’m still in camp ‘system’.
I think it’s because unlike in the “real world” ambiguity has more serious consequences. If I ask my kids to take the dishes off the counter and put them in the dishwasher, they should be able to achieve the outcome without asking me what I mean just because what’s actually on the counter is plates. They know that dishes are a nice convenient term (in Australia) for that kind of thing as a group.
If I ask my computer to move some files off the desktop and delete them and I’m not explicit about which files, I can end up deleting stuff I didn’t mean to.
A bit of a clumsy example, but the point is that ambiguity results in incorrect outcomes. So the natural thing to do is to get the naming clear up front.
My $0.02. 
I don’t share the concern for non-nerd. I just tried it on my 80 year old non-tech Dad and he used it much like this dictionary definition:
There’s one really obvious one that no one has brought up, “library”.
It even fits with your “librarian” approach to the index.
Funnily enough, I think this is going to be one of the killer use cases of JD in the next ~10 years as we get more AI stuff. I am so keen on being able to say “computer, what do you think is the best way to do $task$, you have permission to analyze all files in area 72”.
I still like system the best. It feels ok to me to use the term with two different (but somehow the same) meanings.
- The Johnny.Decimal system as a system to organize your stuff. (The methodology in general)
- My individual personal J.D system that I use for my stuff.
I had very little opinion on this topic until you suggested library, and I love it.
- As you said it fits with the “librarian” approach to the index
- It fits nicely with the obvious connection most people are going to make to the Dewey Decimal system
- It also offers consistency with the terminology already existing for “Photos Library”, “Music Library”, “Podcast Library”, etc.
At least to me it has some connotations of curated or at least managed content instead of a giant bucket that everything is just dumped in.
1 Like
It seems like some of the confusion may be due to a collapse of distinctions. I think you are teaching two things. One is a strategy to deal with the complexity of our digital and meat space lives. The other is a tactic i.e. the development of a filing hierarchy. So there is the JohnnyD. system, approach or method which teaches how to get far enough above the fray to get a picture of it. And then there is the hierarchy which can have any name that appropriate to the task and is comfortable to the user. So project, digital life, etc works just fine. I think it’s the strategy that many people get hung up on because it’s difficult to get high enough out of the day to day to really be able to see where it all falls with regards to creating meaningful separations and then a filing system based on it. Then again I might not have a clue at all. I certainly have not been very successful at making a system work for me. But, the strategy you have proposed has brought me closer than I’ve been before.
Hmmmmm I do like that.
I’m not convinced that it reads better in a sentence like this (from the site’s home page), but maybe this is just familiarity confusing my brain. I’m going to let this one sit for a while. Thanks!
The Johnny.Decimal ID tells us exactly where a thing is. The numbers before the decimal are the item’s category, and they define the structure of your system.
vs.
The Johnny.Decimal ID tells us exactly where a thing is. The numbers before the decimal are the item’s category, and they define the structure of your library.
Everyone’s thoughts on ‘library’? I prefer this to ‘instance’, soz @alex!
The Johnny.Decimal ID tells us exactly where a thing is. The numbers before the decimal are the item’s category, and they define the structure of your instance.
1 Like
This is an interesting point, and one that I’ve only come to realise myself recently.
JD started as a way to organise your files. Yeah, I also managed my tasks, but I didn’t really advertise that. Files was just the easy, obvious problem to solve.
But that doesn’t work any more. Computers have moved on and you don’t just have a pile of files to organise. You’ve got your whole life and it’s wrapped up in all these other systems.
So the Johnny.Decimal system is expanding to encompass this entire ‘digital life’. All of your ‘stuff’. That ‘project’ at work. Whatever you want to organise.
I think this might be the strongest argument for a different term for the end result, i.e. your library or collection of libraries. (Now ‘collection’ makes much more sense as the collective noun.)
I could use Johnny.Decimal methodology and then you develop your individual system but methodology’s an awfully long word that I don’t love. And it’s awkward to type! 
Well “method” might be a little easier on the fingers. I think the JohnnyDecimal Method or process or recipe (if you want to rope in some foodies looking for a way to organize themselves all would get the point across. Cheers.
→ Index ←
To recap, we’re looking to replace the current term for a single group of areas from 00-09 through 90-99. To date I’ve called that a JD project.
The Johnny.Decimal system describes how you get organised. It’s a bunch of techniques, tools, and behaviours. 
What you end up building – the whole thing – is also a system. It’s your system. This feels like a very ‘active’ noun, reflecting the fact that the thing you build is a living thing that affects your behaviour, and evolves, and touches your entire life.
It just works too well as a word. For example, this sentence from the workbook:
If you’re doing this at work, please do it with the rest of the team. They will all need to use this system: involve them early and they’ll be much more engaged.
That’s right. They’re all using this collection of techniques, tools, and behaviours.
Index
We already track our systems using an index, so that’s what we call each individual collection of areas from 00-09 through 90-99: an index.
This allows us to use the word ‘library’ to explain things, because it’s relatable. But it’s not a term with a strict definition here.
You then have a collection of indexes if you have a need to use more than one.
How do we feel about this?
Click to view at 100%. Actually right-click and ‘open image in new tab’ is nicer.
Still not set on these terms, just thought it’d help to diagram out.
I can live with ‘library’. I think I’ll still use ‘instance’ myself though. Will you take care of getting the new “Head of Naming” business cards for @clappingcactus ?
YES, this would be enormously helpful! You’re right; the word ‘project’ does indeed come loaded with assumptions.
Oh yeah and so the ‘system area’ 00-09 and each of the ‘system categories’ at A0 is gonna have to change.
It was originally Management & Meta. Maybe it goes back to just Management?