RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
I generally have to agree with what is written below, but I have to take a minor exception on (a) regarding 'the line that you can do it with DITA or DocBook'. Out of the box does a good job, but unfortunately the 'good job' is at scaring people away. That being said, I'll have a freebie of a pretty good DITA lite template with documentation and more for the world at large in a week or so. I'm literally waiting on a few scripts, a test and some docs and then it's ready. Sure I've needed some updates to the software and I'm pushing Frame in directions it doesn't normally like to go, but in the end I'll have something that works in 7.2 and does 99% in 7.1 as well. It's going to be distributed via my website and updates will continue to be rolled out. It does use some inexpensive third party software and is a subset, but it's pretty solid. The exception I have is that you need to consider what you are willing to adapt in your content as well. Just because it has 'always been written that way' doesn't mean you have to stick with it. Sometimes it's worth sacrificing or changing things to save time/money on your deliverable. If you can manage to use a DITA standard then you are in luck later when changes are needed or third party tools have to be invoked. I'm off to a client site, but I'll post more info on the DITA lite template set soon. I'll happily offer to provide an online venue where I can show it in use if people are interested. Email off list if you would like to have me present a 'how to use the template' session in a live online video presentation. If so I'll email you more info and, if there seems to be enough interest (say over 20 emails to me) I'll send a quick note to the list. Bernard Bernard Aschwanden Publishing Technologies Expert Publishing Smarter [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.publishingsmarter.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus Carr Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:12 PM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc Dominick A. DeFlorio wrote: We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our dollar. Here's how I'd do it: a) Design the structure - if you aren't experienced, don't do it yourself and don't buy the line that you can do it with DITA or DocBook. Get a professional to do proper analysis and design, including documentation about how to use the DTD or schema. This is a critical step - don't scrimp here. b) Save all of your data out of FrameMaker as XML - don't use FrameMaker as a migration tool because if your structure evolves based on infrequent cases, you'll end up spending too much time trying to re-baseline your dataset. c) Use XSLT to convert from XML to your target structure - if you find that you need to make changes, make them and re-run the whole dataset, so you can be certain that all documents are consistently handled. Get help with this if you're not experienced, otherwise you'll get in a mess. Be prepared to also make changes to the data manually - the alternative is to loosen the structure in the DTD or schema, but that's a last resort. Make the data consistent, and be ruthless about it. While you're at it, learn not to be scared to work with native XML - angle brackets don't bite. d) Build the FrameMaker application - concentrate your own efforts on the part of the process that you're most familiar with and learn the parts that will give you the most benefit. e) Train your users - give them as little information about XML as you can get away with. All they need to know is that there's a mechanism in the background that ensures that the documents are structured consistently with the rest of the dataset. Items a) and c) will cost you money, but it's well spent. Do it properly from the start and you'll only do it once - try to do it on the cheap and you can spend the money next time around. I've seen it more times than I could count in the 15 years that I've been involved with SGML and XML conversions. Plenty of very bright people have tried to migrate to structure on the cheap - so many smart faces, so much egg. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Allette Systems (Australia) www:http://www.allette.com.au ___ Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Einstein ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
I generally have to agree with what is written below, but I have to take a minor exception on (a) regarding 'the line that you can do it with DITA or DocBook'. Out of the box does a good job, but unfortunately the 'good job' is at scaring people away. That being said, I'll have a freebie of a pretty good DITA lite template with documentation and more for the world at large in a week or so. I'm literally waiting on a few scripts, a test and some docs and then it's ready. Sure I've needed some updates to the software and I'm pushing Frame in directions it doesn't normally like to go, but in the end I'll have something that works in 7.2 and does 99% in 7.1 as well. It's going to be distributed via my website and updates will continue to be rolled out. It does use some inexpensive third party software and is a subset, but it's pretty solid. The exception I have is that you need to consider what you are willing to adapt in your content as well. Just because it has 'always been written that way' doesn't mean you have to stick with it. Sometimes it's worth sacrificing or changing things to save time/money on your deliverable. If you can manage to use a DITA standard then you are in luck later when changes are needed or third party tools have to be invoked. I'm off to a client site, but I'll post more info on the DITA lite template set soon. I'll happily offer to provide an online venue where I can show it in use if people are interested. Email off list if you would like to have me present a 'how to use the template' session in a live online video presentation. If so I'll email you more info and, if there seems to be enough interest (say over 20 emails to me) I'll send a quick note to the list. Bernard Bernard Aschwanden Publishing Technologies Expert Publishing Smarter bernard at publishingsmarter.com www.publishingsmarter.com -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter.com at lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+bernard=publishingsmarter@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Carr Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:12 PM To: framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: "Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc Dominick A. DeFlorio wrote: > We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are > unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also > unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely > looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our > dollar. Here's how I'd do it: a) Design the structure - if you aren't experienced, don't do it yourself and don't buy the line that you can do it with DITA or DocBook. Get a professional to do proper analysis and design, including documentation about how to use the DTD or schema. This is a critical step - don't scrimp here. b) Save all of your data out of FrameMaker as XML - don't use FrameMaker as a migration tool because if your structure evolves based on infrequent cases, you'll end up spending too much time trying to re-baseline your dataset. c) Use XSLT to convert from XML to your target structure - if you find that you need to make changes, make them and re-run the whole dataset, so you can be certain that all documents are consistently handled. Get help with this if you're not experienced, otherwise you'll get in a mess. Be prepared to also make changes to the data manually - the alternative is to loosen the structure in the DTD or schema, but that's a last resort. Make the data consistent, and be ruthless about it. While you're at it, learn not to be scared to work with native XML - angle brackets don't bite. d) Build the FrameMaker application - concentrate your own efforts on the part of the process that you're most familiar with and learn the parts that will give you the most benefit. e) Train your users - give them as little information about XML as you can get away with. All they need to know is that there's a mechanism in the background that ensures that the documents are structured consistently with the rest of the dataset. Items a) and c) will cost you money, but it's well spent. Do it properly from the start and you'll only do it once - try to do it on the cheap and you can spend the money next time around. I've seen it more times than I could count in the 15 years that I've been involved with SGML and XML conversions. Plenty of very bright people have tried to migrate to structure on the cheap - so many smart faces, so much egg. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: mcarr at allette.com.au ___ Allette Systems (Australia) www:http://www.allette.com.au ___ "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein ___
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
Dominick A. DeFlorio wrote: > We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are > unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also > unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely > looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our > dollar. Here's how I'd do it: a) Design the structure - if you aren't experienced, don't do it yourself and don't buy the line that you can do it with DITA or DocBook. Get a professional to do proper analysis and design, including documentation about how to use the DTD or schema. This is a critical step - don't scrimp here. b) Save all of your data out of FrameMaker as XML - don't use FrameMaker as a migration tool because if your structure evolves based on infrequent cases, you'll end up spending too much time trying to re-baseline your dataset. c) Use XSLT to convert from XML to your target structure - if you find that you need to make changes, make them and re-run the whole dataset, so you can be certain that all documents are consistently handled. Get help with this if you're not experienced, otherwise you'll get in a mess. Be prepared to also make changes to the data manually - the alternative is to loosen the structure in the DTD or schema, but that's a last resort. Make the data consistent, and be ruthless about it. While you're at it, learn not to be scared to work with native XML - angle brackets don't bite. d) Build the FrameMaker application - concentrate your own efforts on the part of the process that you're most familiar with and learn the parts that will give you the most benefit. e) Train your users - give them as little information about XML as you can get away with. All they need to know is that there's a mechanism in the background that ensures that the documents are structured consistently with the rest of the dataset. Items a) and c) will cost you money, but it's well spent. Do it properly from the start and you'll only do it once - try to do it on the cheap and you can spend the money next time around. I've seen it more times than I could count in the 15 years that I've been involved with SGML and XML conversions. Plenty of very bright people have tried to migrate to structure on the cheap - so many smart faces, so much egg. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: mcarr at allette.com.au ___ Allette Systems (Australia) www:http://www.allette.com.au ___ "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
Rick Quatro wrote: > I agree with Marcus's excellent post, but one thing to consider on the > above point: even if you hire it out, try to learn as much about each > process, especially if you can devote some time to it. In today's job > climate, it pays to learn as much as you can about XML and related > technologies. This is knowledge that will be valuable, not only in your > current job, but perhaps in a future job search. Very true - just make sure that if you're paying the bills, you can justify that use of your time. As far as personal and professional gain is concerned there's no question that it's worth keeping your hand in everywhere you can - this structure stuff isn't going away. > Also, in regards to steps (b) and (c), I have found that some > unstructured to structured conversions can be adequately handled with > FrameMaker's conversion tables. Again, if you have time, and a limited > budget, this is one area that you might consider experimenting with. Yeah, grudgingly... ;-) I'm (perhaps unnecessarily) hard on FrameMaker as a migration tool because I've seen people get caught out after they've done a lot of work. I tend to advocate a solution that should always work, but I probably throw some babies with that bathwater. While we're clapping each other on the back, I really like Rick's comment that it's more important to focus on working post-migration than to spend too much energy on migration. Migration will never be fun, but if you do it properly, it'll only have to happen once. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: mcarr at allette.com.au ___ Allette Systems (Australia) www:http://www.allette.com.au ___ "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein
RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
Thank you to all who responded to my structure question. You have provided plenty of material for thought and research. dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] .com] On Behalf Of Paul Nagai Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:51 PM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc If you search google groups for the following: Comparison of XML tools for writing documents You will find a techwr-l conversation from about a year ago that might be helpful. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dominick_deflorio%40 plugpower.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
In my limited experience, Epic provides only an XML editor, and you're limited to working in native XML. FrameMaker can not only open XML files, but saves as XML as well, and in between is able to handle graphics better than Epic. If you're used to using variables and conditional text, then FrameMaker is a better tool. You should also investigate training and other services provided by Lynne Price, she's one of the best when it comes to structured FrameMaker. (http://www.txstruct.com/) Anita Legsdin Sr. Technical Writer Vallent Corp. 425-564-8135 -Original Message- Message: 9 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:31:43 -0500 From: DeFlorio, Dominick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc To: Combs, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED], framers@lists.frameusers.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our dollar. Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
Dominick A. DeFlorio wrote: We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our dollar. Here's how I'd do it: a) Design the structure - if you aren't experienced, don't do it yourself and don't buy the line that you can do it with DITA or DocBook. Get a professional to do proper analysis and design, including documentation about how to use the DTD or schema. This is a critical step - don't scrimp here. b) Save all of your data out of FrameMaker as XML - don't use FrameMaker as a migration tool because if your structure evolves based on infrequent cases, you'll end up spending too much time trying to re-baseline your dataset. c) Use XSLT to convert from XML to your target structure - if you find that you need to make changes, make them and re-run the whole dataset, so you can be certain that all documents are consistently handled. Get help with this if you're not experienced, otherwise you'll get in a mess. Be prepared to also make changes to the data manually - the alternative is to loosen the structure in the DTD or schema, but that's a last resort. Make the data consistent, and be ruthless about it. While you're at it, learn not to be scared to work with native XML - angle brackets don't bite. d) Build the FrameMaker application - concentrate your own efforts on the part of the process that you're most familiar with and learn the parts that will give you the most benefit. e) Train your users - give them as little information about XML as you can get away with. All they need to know is that there's a mechanism in the background that ensures that the documents are structured consistently with the rest of the dataset. Items a) and c) will cost you money, but it's well spent. Do it properly from the start and you'll only do it once - try to do it on the cheap and you can spend the money next time around. I've seen it more times than I could count in the 15 years that I've been involved with SGML and XML conversions. Plenty of very bright people have tried to migrate to structure on the cheap - so many smart faces, so much egg. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Allette Systems (Australia) www:http://www.allette.com.au ___ Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Einstein ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
Items a) and c) will cost you money, but it's well spent. Do it properly from the start and you'll only do it once - try to do it on the cheap and you can spend the money next time around. I've seen it more times than I could count in the 15 years that I've been involved with SGML and XML conversions. Plenty of very bright people have tried to migrate to structure on the cheap - so many smart faces, so much egg. I agree with Marcus's excellent post, but one thing to consider on the above point: even if you hire it out, try to learn as much about each process, especially if you can devote some time to it. In today's job climate, it pays to learn as much as you can about XML and related technologies. This is knowledge that will be valuable, not only in your current job, but perhaps in a future job search. Also, in regards to steps (b) and (c), I have found that some unstructured to structured conversions can be adequately handled with FrameMaker's conversion tables. Again, if you have time, and a limited budget, this is one area that you might consider experimenting with. Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing 585-659-8267 www.frameexpert.com ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
Rick Quatro wrote: I agree with Marcus's excellent post, but one thing to consider on the above point: even if you hire it out, try to learn as much about each process, especially if you can devote some time to it. In today's job climate, it pays to learn as much as you can about XML and related technologies. This is knowledge that will be valuable, not only in your current job, but perhaps in a future job search. Very true - just make sure that if you're paying the bills, you can justify that use of your time. As far as personal and professional gain is concerned there's no question that it's worth keeping your hand in everywhere you can - this structure stuff isn't going away. Also, in regards to steps (b) and (c), I have found that some unstructured to structured conversions can be adequately handled with FrameMaker's conversion tables. Again, if you have time, and a limited budget, this is one area that you might consider experimenting with. Yeah, grudgingly... ;-) I'm (perhaps unnecessarily) hard on FrameMaker as a migration tool because I've seen people get caught out after they've done a lot of work. I tend to advocate a solution that should always work, but I probably throw some babies with that bathwater. While we're clapping each other on the back, I really like Rick's comment that it's more important to focus on working post-migration than to spend too much energy on migration. Migration will never be fun, but if you do it properly, it'll only have to happen once. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Allette Systems (Australia) www:http://www.allette.com.au ___ Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Einstein ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
Thank you to all who responded to my structure question. You have provided plenty of material for thought and research. dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+dominick_deflorio=plugpower.com at lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+dominick_deflorio=plugpower.com at lists.frameusers .com] On Behalf Of Paul Nagai Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:51 PM To: framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: "Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc If you search google groups for the following: Comparison of XML tools for writing documents You will find a techwr-l conversation from about a year ago that might be helpful. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as dominick_deflorio at plugpower.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dominick_deflorio%40 plugpower.com Send administrative questions to lisa at frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
In my limited experience, Epic provides only an XML editor, and you're limited to working in native XML. FrameMaker can not only open XML files, but saves as XML as well, and in between is able to handle graphics better than Epic. If you're used to using variables and conditional text, then FrameMaker is a better tool. You should also investigate training and other services provided by Lynne Price, she's one of the best when it comes to structured FrameMaker. (http://www.txstruct.com/) Anita Legsdin Sr. Technical Writer Vallent Corp. 425-564-8135 -Original Message- Message: 9 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:31:43 -0500 From: "DeFlorio, Dominick" <dominick_deflo...@plugpower.com> Subject: RE: "Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc To: "Combs, Richard" , Message-ID: <1D00652A8556DD43BAC6BB855F67225707290BAB at ppmail.plugpower.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our dollar. Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
> Items a) and c) will cost you money, but it's well spent. Do it properly > from the start and you'll only do it once - try to do it on the cheap and > you can spend the money next time around. I've seen it more times than I > could count in the 15 years that I've been involved with SGML and XML > conversions. Plenty of very bright people have tried to migrate to > structure on the cheap - so many smart faces, so much egg. I agree with Marcus's excellent post, but one thing to consider on the above point: even if you hire it out, try to learn as much about each process, especially if you can devote some time to it. In today's job climate, it pays to learn as much as you can about XML and related technologies. This is knowledge that will be valuable, not only in your current job, but perhaps in a future job search. Also, in regards to steps (b) and (c), I have found that some unstructured to structured conversions can be adequately handled with FrameMaker's conversion tables. Again, if you have time, and a limited budget, this is one area that you might consider experimenting with. Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing 585-659-8267 www.frameexpert.com
Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. About two months ago, I posed a question to FrameUsers requesting opinions on the best approach for migrating to structure and received much valuable feedback. I have been researching the possibility of using a company that provides training coupled with consulting. Consulting and training are multi-leveled, depending on the price tag. Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, but I would like feedback on real life experiences/opinions from anyone who has used Epic to migrate Frame documents to structure. I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the product as well as support issues--Frame issues. I am also interested in experiences with the more traditional Frame-to-structure, training/consulting companies. ...opinions and experiences, good or bad. Thank you, Dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
I can't answer in regards to Epic. It has been touted as an expensive solution, but viable. You mail mentions ...depending on price tag. , so I take it money is an issue. Take a look at Scriptorium (http://www.scriptorium.com/). Sarah O'Keefe, and her associate Sheila Loring, literally, wrote the book (The Complete Reference: FrameMaker 7). They provide both training and consulting in the use of FrameMaker, structured or unstructured. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] m] On Behalf Of DeFlorio, Dominick Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:44 AM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. About two months ago, I posed a question to FrameUsers requesting opinions on the best approach for migrating to structure and received much valuable feedback. I have been researching the possibility of using a company that provides training coupled with consulting. Consulting and training are multi-leveled, depending on the price tag. Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, but I would like feedback on real life experiences/opinions from anyone who has used Epic to migrate Frame documents to structure. I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the product as well as support issues--Frame issues. I am also interested in experiences with the more traditional Frame-to-structure, training/consulting companies. ...opinions and experiences, good or bad. Thank you, Dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
Hi Dominick, I would look at both products with the assumption that your documentation is already structured. In other words, the process of converting to structure will not last forever, so you want to find out which product works best for you once everything is structured. Once you determine which product meets your needs for working with structured documents, then you can figure out the best way to migrate from unstructured FrameMaker to the structured product. I don't have any experience with Epic Editor, but I can tell you that structured FrameMaker works well. If your authors are used to working with unstructured FrameMaker, it should be a smooth transition to working with structured FrameMaker. As far as conversion from unstructured to structured FrameMaker, there are some good tools built into FrameMaker to do this. Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing 585-659-8267 www.frameexpert.com We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. About two months ago, I posed a question to FrameUsers requesting opinions on the best approach for migrating to structure and received much valuable feedback. I have been researching the possibility of using a company that provides training coupled with consulting. Consulting and training are multi-leveled, depending on the price tag. Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, but I would like feedback on real life experiences/opinions from anyone who has used Epic to migrate Frame documents to structure. I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the product as well as support issues--Frame issues. I am also interested in experiences with the more traditional Frame-to-structure, training/consulting companies. ...opinions and experiences, good or bad. Thank you, Dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
At 8:05 am -0600 30/1/06, Spreadbury, David wrote: Take a look at Scriptorium (http://www.scriptorium.com/). Sarah O'Keefe, and her associate Sheila Loring, literally, wrote the book (The Complete Reference: FrameMaker 7). They provide both training and consulting in the use of FrameMaker, structured or unstructured. As a recent and satisfied user of their 'Advanced Structured FrameMaker: Building EDDs' course-book, I can second this. You *do* need the 'Complete Reference' book as well, though, for the supporting material. This book goes where the FrameMaker User Guide merely bottles out with remarks of the 'Your structured application developer will...' type ;-) Better imho to gain and keep the skills yourself, if timescales and budget allow for it. -- Steve ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our dollar. Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] .com] On Behalf Of Combs, Richard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:17 AM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc Dominick DeFlorio wrote: We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. snip Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, If your docs are currently in FM, and your staff are skilled in FM, and there are financial constraints, why are you tempted to move to a new (and much more expensive) software solution? That will only add to the consulting and training costs. Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 -- ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dominick_deflorio%40 plugpower.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
Hi Dominick, I second Richard's question about your underlying assumptions (why is XML a goal in and of itself?). That said, if you're committed to structured authoring and want a reasonably inexpensive solution, I'd strongly recommend that you take a look at DocFrame from Scriptorium (Sarah O'Keefe's company). It's as close to an off-the-shelf structured solution as you're likely going to find. It sounds like you're going through the same decision-making process I went through a couple months ago. We narrowed our choices down to Arbortext, home-brew structured Frame, DocFrame, and (just for kicks) unstructured Frame. What surprised us is that our requirements lined up better with unstructured Frame, so that's what we ended up going with, but DocFrame was an extremely close second. Definitely worth a careful look. In terms of transitions from unstructured Frame to structured solution X, my understanding is that it entirely depends on the implied structure that exists in your current, unstructured files. If you've tagged your content consistently, using a template that defines formats based on their content rather than intended appearance, mapping the unstructured content to a structured solution (such as DocBook or DocFrame) should be reasonably straightforward. But if your content includes a lot of cowboy formatting and non-semantic application of formats, you may have to clean up the source content before any kind of transition can take place. Depending on the longevity of the existing content, it may be more cost-effective to create all your new content in structured solution X and phase out use of unstructured Frame as the need for the existing content wanes. Good luck! Andrew Becraft Senior Technical Writer Singlestep Technologies P: 206.838.7982 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Real Life Migration to Structured Doc
If you search google groups for the following: Comparison of XML tools for writing documents You will find a techwr-l conversation from about a year ago that might be helpful. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. About two months ago, I posed a question to FrameUsers requesting opinions on the best approach for migrating to structure and received much valuable feedback. I have been researching the possibility of using a company that provides training coupled with consulting. Consulting and training are multi-leveled, depending on the price tag. Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, but I would like feedback on "real life" experiences/opinions from anyone who has used Epic to migrate Frame documents to structure. I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the product as well as support issues--Frame issues. I am also interested in experiences with the more traditional Frame-to-structure, training/consulting companies. ...opinions and experiences, good or bad. Thank you, Dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
I can't answer in regards to Epic. It has been touted as an expensive solution, but viable. You mail mentions "...depending on price tag." , so I take it money is an issue. Take a look at Scriptorium (http://www.scriptorium.com/). Sarah O'Keefe, and her associate Sheila Loring, literally, wrote the book (The Complete Reference: FrameMaker 7). They provide both training and consulting in the use of FrameMaker, structured or unstructured. -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+david.spreadbury=tellabs@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+david.spreadbury=tellabs.com at lists.frameusers.co m] On Behalf Of DeFlorio, Dominick Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:44 AM To: framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: "Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. About two months ago, I posed a question to FrameUsers requesting opinions on the best approach for migrating to structure and received much valuable feedback. I have been researching the possibility of using a company that provides training coupled with consulting. Consulting and training are multi-leveled, depending on the price tag. Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, but I would like feedback on "real life" experiences/opinions from anyone who has used Epic to migrate Frame documents to structure. I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the product as well as support issues--Frame issues. I am also interested in experiences with the more traditional Frame-to-structure, training/consulting companies. ...opinions and experiences, good or bad. Thank you, Dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
Hi Dominick, I would look at both products with the assumption that your documentation is already structured. In other words, the process of converting to structure will not last forever, so you want to find out which product works best for you once everything is structured. Once you determine which product meets your needs for working with structured documents, then you can figure out the best way to migrate from unstructured FrameMaker to the structured product. I don't have any experience with Epic Editor, but I can tell you that structured FrameMaker works well. If your authors are used to working with unstructured FrameMaker, it should be a smooth transition to working with structured FrameMaker. As far as conversion from unstructured to structured FrameMaker, there are some good tools built into FrameMaker to do this. Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing 585-659-8267 www.frameexpert.com We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward structuring our document collection. About two months ago, I posed a question to FrameUsers requesting opinions on the best approach for migrating to structure and received much valuable feedback. I have been researching the possibility of using a company that provides training coupled with consulting. Consulting and training are multi-leveled, depending on the price tag. Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am still open to it. In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, but I would like feedback on "real life" experiences/opinions from anyone who has used Epic to migrate Frame documents to structure. I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the product as well as support issues--Frame issues. I am also interested in experiences with the more traditional Frame-to-structure, training/consulting companies. ...opinions and experiences, good or bad. Thank you, Dominick Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
At 8:05 am -0600 30/1/06, Spreadbury, David wrote: >Take a look at Scriptorium (http://www.scriptorium.com/). Sarah O'Keefe, >and her associate Sheila Loring, literally, wrote the book (The Complete >Reference: FrameMaker 7). They provide both training and consulting in >the use of FrameMaker, structured or unstructured. As a recent and satisfied user of their 'Advanced Structured FrameMaker: Building EDDs' course-book, I can second this. You *do* need the 'Complete Reference' book as well, though, for the supporting material. This book goes where the FrameMaker User Guide merely bottles out with remarks of the 'Your structured application developer will...' type ;-) Better imho to gain and keep the skills yourself, if timescales and budget allow for it. -- Steve
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
We must move to structure to meet our future XML goal, but are unfamiliar with both the transition and method to do so. We are also unfamiliar with the possibilities and cost involved. We are merely looking at all of the possibilities and the long term value for our dollar. Dominick A. DeFlorio Senior Technical Writer Plug Power, Inc. 968 Albany-Shaker Road Latham, NY 12110 (518) 738-0389 -Original Message- From: framers-bounces+dominick_deflorio=plugpower.com at lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+dominick_deflorio=plugpower.com at lists.frameusers .com] On Behalf Of Combs, Richard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:17 AM To: framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: "Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc Dominick DeFlorio wrote: > We are still trying to decide which direction to take toward > structuring our document collection. > Due to financial constraints, I am ambivalent about committing to a > tack that may not enable us to become self-sufficient. However, I am > still open to it. > > In my search for the best approach, Arbortext's Epic Editor came up as > a possible solution. Epic seems fairly robust, If your docs are currently in FM, and your staff are skilled in FM, and there are financial constraints, why are you tempted to move to a new (and much more expensive) software solution? That will only add to the consulting and training costs. Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 -- ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as dominick_deflorio at plugpower.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dominick_deflorio%40 plugpower.com Send administrative questions to lisa at frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
Hi Dominick, I second Richard's question about your underlying assumptions (why is XML a goal in and of itself?). That said, if you're committed to structured authoring and want a reasonably inexpensive solution, I'd strongly recommend that you take a look at DocFrame from Scriptorium (Sarah O'Keefe's company). It's as close to an off-the-shelf structured solution as you're likely going to find. It sounds like you're going through the same decision-making process I went through a couple months ago. We narrowed our choices down to Arbortext, home-brew structured Frame, DocFrame, and (just for kicks) unstructured Frame. What surprised us is that our requirements lined up better with unstructured Frame, so that's what we ended up going with, but DocFrame was an extremely close second. Definitely worth a careful look. In terms of transitions from unstructured Frame to structured solution X, my understanding is that it entirely depends on the "implied structure" that exists in your current, unstructured files. If you've tagged your content consistently, using a template that defines formats based on their content rather than intended appearance, mapping the unstructured content to a structured solution (such as DocBook or DocFrame) should be reasonably straightforward. But if your content includes a lot of "cowboy formatting" and non-semantic application of formats, you may have to clean up the source content before any kind of transition can take place. Depending on the longevity of the existing content, it may be more cost-effective to create all your new content in structured solution X and phase out use of unstructured Frame as the need for the existing content wanes. Good luck! Andrew Becraft Senior Technical Writer Singlestep Technologies P: 206.838.7982 E: andrewb at singlestep.com
"Real Life" Migration to Structured Doc
If you search google groups for the following: Comparison of XML tools for writing documents You will find a techwr-l conversation from about a year ago that might be helpful.
