>You don't publish data the same way on a telephone, web site, intranet, >paper etc. So that means you need to structure your data (at the source) for >all possible existing and future publishing supports - and that is where >things get complicated... >So highly structuring your data 'at the source' takes :
I'm not sure I agree to this, why can't the same content not be presented on the web, the intranet, the phone etc etc? That's the point of describing the *meaning* of content rather than it's presentation, if you know what the content actually is rather than how it looks you usually can figure out a way to transform it to fit a certain media. Sure you can argue that you write different kind of content for different medias, longer for print, more distilled for the web and much shorter for the phone but than it's *different* content and far from all content needs to be adapted that way, and if you do that you have to rewrite it anyway so. >- A huge investment in people : the involvement and implication and training >of the whole information chain, from journalists to layout artists to >editors etc. Well it's an investment but I'm not so sure it needs to be a huge one, training people to author content in a new way shouldn't be too hard if the tools are good and the advantages are clear. >- a huge investment in technology. Buying a CMS centered around this paradigm is hardly more expensive then buying a tradional one :) mvh --- Mattias Konradsson -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
