Jiheisho wrote:
Sure. The basic system goes from general to specific. For example, you may have four over arching categories and then each categories have subcategories, and so on. For example, you might be organizing policy and you have bin for environmental policy, health policy, educational policy, etc. Those are then sub-divided by statutes, regulations, court decisions, and research. Those then can be further divided into land, ocean, and wildlife, in the case of environmental policy. You could also decide land, ocean, and wildlife take precedent over statutes, regulations, court decisions, and research if you think in terms of land, ocean, and wildlife categories.
You are simply setting up information structures.
Likewise, file names follow that so sorting on names arranges files in a logical way. So I might have enviro-statutes-ocean-CZMA-1984. You can also develop coding prefixes for file names, but that can be trickier if you don't know how all possible levels of information you need.
You can also map all this out on a piece of paper before you begin. You can play with some different structures. Something that reflects your hierarchy of information works the best as it is more intuitive for you. If you are designing for others, then their input can help as it will have to fit a workflow.
I don't have hierarchies yet. If I had a dozen folders to choose from, and a file card with an idea on it, I'd still want to be able to find it while browsing about half of the folders. Everything seems connected, and the strength of the connections depends mostly on the day's perspective.