Comments on: This conversation…enabled via standards http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/ Thoughts about software architecture, books and life Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: eXo Platform » Blog Archive » ECM and standards http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-20273 eXo Platform » Blog Archive » ECM and standards Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:17:58 +0000 http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/#comment-20273 [...] This conversation…enabled via standards [...] [...] This conversation…enabled via standards [...]

]]> By: Standards in ECM « Warren’s World http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-20195 Standards in ECM « Warren’s World Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:36:23 +0000 http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/#comment-20195 [...] I notice there have has been an upsurge in volume of posts discussing standards in ECM here, here and here and especially [...] [...] I notice there have has been an upsurge in volume of posts discussing standards in ECM here, here and here and especially [...]

]]> By: Craig Randall http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-20120 Craig Randall Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:36:30 +0000 http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/#comment-20120 Thanks, Bex, for the clarification by way of referring to <a href="http://bexhuff.com/lack-of-ecm-standards" rel="nofollow">a post of yours</a> older than <a href="http://bexhuff.com/rss-and-webdav-for-ecm-holy-crap-no" rel="nofollow">the one I referenced</a>. Seeing straight just fine, thanks. :-) Thanks, Bex, for the clarification by way of referring to a post of yours older than the one I referenced.

Seeing straight just fine, thanks. :-)

]]> By: bex http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-20119 bex Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:29:11 +0000 http://craigrandall.net/archives/2007/07/this-conversationenabled-via-standards/#comment-20119 huh... I actually said almost exactly the opposite. http://bexhuff.com/node/256 In previous posts on my blog, I said that a end-all-be-all ECM standard is impossible. ECM is a marketing term, not a techincal term, thus over 100 apps can claim to support "ECM", but can deliver whatever the hell they want. Good luck creating a standard interface to a marketing buzzword. If you want some modest ECM standards, fine. There are 4 such standard already, just pick a damn horse. Stellent/Oracle supports 3, and will probably support all 4 soon... just in time for the 5th to be finalized. Joy. Not that it matters... nobody uses the ones that already exist, yet they keep asking for more. I understand why: every ECM standard is far far too simple to be useful. Why should somebody shell out thousands of dollars for an ECM system, and access it with a "standard API" that hides 90% of the features? At the same time, an enterprise can have several ECM systems at once... and it would be nice if a middleware layer could have a single API to access them all. Nice, but not nice enough that they will willingly sacrifice important features. I feel a standard will happen, but not until Microsoft fixes SharePoint, more consolidation happens in the market, and the vendors who merely claim to have ECM either shut up or go away. huh… I actually said almost exactly the opposite.

http://bexhuff.com/node/256

In previous posts on my blog, I said that a end-all-be-all ECM standard is impossible. ECM is a marketing term, not a techincal term, thus over 100 apps can claim to support “ECM”, but can deliver whatever the hell they want. Good luck creating a standard interface to a marketing buzzword.

If you want some modest ECM standards, fine. There are 4 such standard already, just pick a damn horse. Stellent/Oracle supports 3, and will probably support all 4 soon… just in time for the 5th to be finalized. Joy.

Not that it matters… nobody uses the ones that already exist, yet they keep asking for more. I understand why: every ECM standard is far far too simple to be useful. Why should somebody shell out thousands of dollars for an ECM system, and access it with a “standard API” that hides 90% of the features? At the same time, an enterprise can have several ECM systems at once… and it would be nice if a middleware layer could have a single API to access them all. Nice, but not nice enough that they will willingly sacrifice important features.

I feel a standard will happen, but not until Microsoft fixes SharePoint, more consolidation happens in the market, and the vendors who merely claim to have ECM either shut up or go away.

]]>