André wrote: > Hi Steve, Rex, > This thread is close to my heart and Steve, I think > Rex has a point.
Hi, Steve, Rex, and André! Sorry to jump in, but near and dear to my heart is this also. André wrote: > <snip> I don't know why I never noticed but there > is a MAJOR rift in system architecture that Rex is > alluding to. A CMS IMHO *must* be able to manage > content _internally_ before any template has been > built - ie. framework. <snip> Very interesting observation, this architectural "rift". Agreed, that managing content _internally_ is of paramount importance to CM. There are a number of approaches to this, like Zope's objects, systems using database back-ends (field and record-described data), systems using binary (opaque, proprietary) "doc/content" storage, etc. The issue is more complicated when looking at issues like whether or not a schema or well-defined form must be defined prior to adding content. I attended some of the *first* Portal conferences, and it was quite interesting (to me) how painful it was for the speakers/panels to manage simply a *definition* of "Portal". While inconclusive, I did get some nice high-level context for that time (a few years ago): In the beginning we had file storage, and then came LANs where we could share files, and then came WANs where we could distribute files, and then came the WEB where we could distribute files and have some basic interactivity (client-side, server-side, distribute Applets as business logic packets, CGI-type interactivity). Those rather "static" views (despite the idea that you are doing client/server manipulation) comprised many companies' "intranets". When "portals" showed up, consultants promoting the new buzz word had to urinate in various areas to etch out a distinct territory separate from "intranets". While painfully concluded, the answer was "workflow". Intranets may have some client/server manipulation and even dynamic rendering, but you're largely working with a static set of content. The power of Portals was promised as the "workflow integrator", where the user's view was everything the user cared about to get that person's job done, thus customized for that user's work, including interactivity that fed the content on the back end. If intranets were centralized content propagated to the user, Portals were customized one-stop shopping to that centralized content, with tools integration, that had a side effect of the job getting done, and another side effect of the centralized content being updated. In the Portal crowd in those days, "content management" was the stupid scripts or tools or junk that you used to find the file you created two months ago. (CM wasn't the "end-all", because Portals were the "end-all". CM was the commodity that was needed, but was difficult to implement.) I fear there is something to that which is easy to forget: We don't have a database so we can fill it with data. Rather, a database is something that is part of a chosen solution-for-a-higher-purpose. Similarly, we don't have a CM system so we can fill it with content. Ideally, we would also know that "higher purpose". > > Behalf Of Steve Williams > > > > "A true CMS should only be dealing with content > > management and not with presentation. <snip> > > > > Rex - I would love to know where it written down > > what a CMS can and cant be I don't know who owns the definitions either. I've seen many thoughts by many vendors/consultants, though. I appreciate the efforts to distinguish among content management and config management and knowledge management and digital rights management and digital asset management and presentation management and the all-to-prevolent stupid senior management, but sometimes it seems these important and subtle distinctions merely cloud what's really going on. That's why I like this discussion on content *management* separate from *presentation*. So, if the exact same content can be published in HTML and TeX, do you have that separation? I'm not sure how to measure this, but that seems easier to separate than those other fields listed above. > Question for every vendor on this list: Can you > create content without a template? We're not a vendor (academic system in development), but we don't have any concept of a template. We describe heterogeneous content, with very little concept of rendering (text files, proprietary data language). All rendering comes at the point of publication. As a related aside, I've been reading a lot of articles lately about how "unstructured content" is a misnomer, that even the most abstract documents have internal structure (linked thoughts in some order). I dispute this notion that these documents are "structured". Not wishing to succomb to the hubris of self-defined terms, but our project adopted the notion of "structure" as described in Computer Science where, "structure implies form". If I have "structure", then I have a well-known form where one paragraph comes (the abstract), followed by one image, followed by a series of paragraphs. If all "documents" look like that (we've seen that deployed in a number of environments), then we have a well-known structure. We have structured content. If your "document" can merely be ten images and no text, or whatever else not "well-known" and impossible to anticipate, then that's unstructured (the idea of "structure" is not related to ideas, but to physical media types comprising the content). Is this "structure" a template? Or, is it a template independant of a target technology (HTML, TeX, etc.)? Or, is it a template tied to a specific target technology (only for HTML)? Or, is it a template tied to a specific target technology (HTML) for a specific domain (BarnesAndNoble.com book description)? By default, none of our content has any structure whatsoever. So yes, I can most assuredly respond in the affirmative as to the opinion of the latter regarding the query of the former in regards to content creation without a template. Indubitably. (I need to practice my political speaking, as I've been told on occasion that I lack tact.) Again, sorry to butt in. I'm a jerk like that. --charley [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
