We’ve posted our results in time for the conference session on Blogs, Wikis, and RSS as Enterprise Content Applications tomorrow morning. Keep in mind this is an informal survey and only has 43 responses so far. We will keep the survey going and update the results.
Author: Frank Gilbane (Page 69 of 71)
Our survey on enterprise blogs, wiki and RSS use was out of commission for a few days because the vendor of the survey service upgraded their software and broke a few things. The short survey is back online now. We’ll be posting the results next week during our conference in time for our session on the same topic. BTW, we are going to open this session (Wednesday morning 8:30 -10:00am) to anyone who is there, even if their badge is only for the technology demonstrations on Monday and Tuesday. So come by and blog it!
It wasn’t too long ago that all document formats were proprietary, and vendors that sold authoring and publishing software had a really unfair advantage over their customers because it was so difficult and costly for organizations to convert their content from one proprietary system to another. It was the granddaddy of descriptive markup, SGML, that led the way to the infinitely improved situation we have today with seemingly universal support for XML, and tools like XSL, XQuery etc. So, if most major software applications support reading/writing of XML, including the 800 pound gorilla of office documents Microsoft Office, hasn’t the issue of proprietary formats gone away?
If you are in charge of protecting your organizations content/document assets, you better not be thinking your problems are over. If you are involved in sharing content with other organizations or among applications, you already know how difficult it is to share information without loss — if it is that difficult to share, how easy will it be to migrate to future applications?
Our keynote debate in San Francisco next week is all about helping you understand how to best protect and share your content. While there are some differences between the Microsoft and Sun positions represented by Jean Paoli and Tim Bray, I think they agree more than they disagree on the critical issues you need to consider. We’ll be looking at different aspects of the issue including technology, licensing, cost, and complexity vs. flexibility. For some background see Jon Udell’s posts here and here, and the Cover Pages here. Both contain links to additional info.
I almost forgot… What does this have to do with my earlier posts on the future of content management and Longhorn? Well, Office applications, like all content applications, should benefit from an operating system that can manage content elements and attributes that could be described in XML. Would this make document interchange easier? I don’t know, but it might be fun to explore this question in the session.
If you have a specific question you would like us to cover on the panel, send me an email or add a comment to this post and we’ll summarize what happens.
UPDATE: Jon says he is in Jean’s camp on custom schemas and Tim’s on XHTML. At our Boston panel I think all of us agreed – of course neither Tim nor Jean were there. Jon is tagging his posts on the conference with gilbaneSF2005.
We are using the category and (more wordy) tag Gilbane Conference San Francisco 2005 for all our SF conference postings.
In an earlier post on Longhorn adoption, I talked about the need for an operating system that provided support that went beyond simple file management to include services that content applications could leverage. Will Longhorn’s WinFS do this? Will other operating systems?
One of the questions we’ll be asking our panel on the Future of Content Management at our conference next week, will be “Where in the software stack is the best place to provide basic content management functionality, e.g., content elements with attributes and metadata?” With senior strategists from Oracle, Interwoven, FatWire and Mark Logic on the panel we ought to get some interesting discussion going. If you have a question you would like to see us address, comment on this post or send me an email.
In my next post I’ll look at how this question relates to one of the fundamental issues underlying the keynote debate on XML Strategy and Open Information.
Just found this CEO Blogger’s Club group blog. It looks like it is managed by a PR firm, but it has some good stuff on enterprise blogging. For example, the entry on Ten Ideas for Corporate RSS Feeds.
The non-profit Content Management Professionals organization, an international community of practice, is holding their Spring Summit in San Francisco on April 11. The Summit is being held at the Palace Hotel in downtown San Francisco in conjunction with our Gilbane Conference on Content Management Technologies.
Activities at the Summit include small-group, roundtable discussions focusing on the strategy and practice of content management and the role of those who are engaged in this discipline. CM Pros members leading roundtables include:
- Erik Hartman (Netherlands) on the enterprise content management poster and CMSML (CMS markup language)
- Hilary Marsh (Chicago) on the content in content management
- Ann Rockley (Toronto) on making the content management business case
- Mira Wooten (Mountain View, CA) on content management networking
- Rahel Bailie (Vancouver) on the human factor in content management
- Seth Earley (Boston) on doing successful taxonomy projects
- Shuli Goodman (San Francisco) on effective governance models to support enterprise content strategies
- David Warwick (Australia) on organizational compliance and the role of CM systems.
Update: Full Summit Program and schedule.
Register for the Summit or find out more about it.
(Discloure: I’m on the board.)
We open our conference in San Francisco in a little over a week with a panel of analysts who focus on content management. These were very popular and fun sessions at our Boston and LA events. We will have plenty of questions for them as usual, and we hope to see many of you there to ask questions in person. But for those of you that can’t make it, you can still send us your questions and we’ll provide some kind of synopsis on our blog. These are smart, opinionated people, so don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions. You can comment on this post so the panelists can all see, or send me an email.
Dan Farber raises the issue of Longhorn adoption and quotes a Jupiter analyst who claims the challenge is that XP is “good enough”. There is actually a more fundamental reason the question of adoption is interesting. What is that and what does it have to do with content technology?
I’ll start the answer with a little history. In 1994 at our first Documation conference, I moderated a debate between Tony Williams, Chief Architect of COM at Microsoft, and Larry Tesler, Chief Scientist at Apple. The Microsoft COM and OFS/Cairo and Apple OpenDoc efforts both recognized the need for operating systems to provide more support for the richness of unstructured information than is possible with the primitive file systems we had then.
Before the debate I preferred the OpenDoc approach because it seemed more consistent with my view that new operating systems needed to be able to manage arbitrary information objects and structures that could be described with a markup language (like SGML at the time). However, Tony convinced me that OpenDoc was too radical a change for both users and developers at the time. Tony agreed with the ultimate need to make such a radical change to file systems to support the growing need for applications to manage more complex content, but he said that Microsoft had decided the world was not ready for such a shock to the system yet, and defended their strategy as the more realistic.
Eleven years later and we are still stuck with the same old-fashioned file system in spite of the fact that every modern business application needs to understand and process multiple types of information inside files. This means that database platforms and applications need to do a lot more work than they should to work with content. I am no expert on Longhorn, but the file system that will be part of it (although maybe not initially), WinFS, is supposed to go a long way towards fixing this problem. Is the world ready for it yet? I hope so, but it will still be a big change, and Tony’s concerns of 1994 are still relevant.
