Comments for ChrisScott.org

Comment on Publishing from a Content Hub by chris

chris — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:01:53 +0000

I completely agree with the strategic vision of a Content Hub you’ve defined in your post, Chris. I think the reason that a DAM (or Ed System) is still valid in the case of the kind of publishers we work with is that they need the specific tactical functions that an idealistic strategic content repository would avoid. For example, if the centre of the content hub doesn’t handle cropping of images and printing of contact sheets then you need to add another spoke application, a digital picture desk, into the system. If the Hub cannot extract stills from a video then a new workflow is required to make a request back to a video server/service and then to transfer the image back, referencing the original and keeping the two linked (which may not even be possible in the video system).

Apart from the additional complexity of the system described above in terms of integration points, etc, it adds many more points of failure – a huge no-no for mission critical publishing systems – and, presumably, a significant cost implication with all of the extra licenses. So, while I do agree with the panacea view in you post for most organisations, I think that the publisher’s DAM approach is more pragmatic for many publishers.

Comment on Publishing from a Content Hub by Christopher Hill

Christopher Hill — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:11:48 +0000

@Christopher Hill
Incidentally, I expanded further on this on my blog at http://chill1999.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-you-need-content-hub-and-probably.html

Comment on Publishing from a Content Hub by Christopher Hill

Christopher Hill — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:10:45 +0000

Good explanation of the content hub concept. I, however, would contend that neither an editorial system nor a what we traditionally call a DAM are good at serving as a content hub. Even though both is technically possible, it is often a mistake to combine tactical systems with strategic systems.

Editorial systems are tailored towards print professionals for the creation, management and publishing of print-oriented (and sometimes electronic) content. They need to have features, data fields, and functionality to support those processes. DAM systems generally are tailored to serve graphics professionals. They are often deployed in order to help manage and transform these assets with interfaces and functionality tailored towards graphics professionals.

Take an average user who are not deeply involved with these two functions in an organization and turn them loose in either of these systems. The workflows, buttons, labels, etc. are likely to be confusing at best to the untrained user.

To me, it is important to carve out a new category of software in an organization to serve as a content hub. This should have a very straightforward interface, straightforward workflows, and straightforward functionality so that anyone in an organization can find and distribute content regardless of its origin. In this way, you keep novices out of systems that necessarily are focused on the needs of a technical group in the organization. Users of a content hub should not become lost in the arcane tactical details of creative, print or Web professionals. This also makes the overall IT infrastructure more management. You do not have to implement complex, error-prone “views” on tactical systems suitable for untrained users.

If you try to drop all of your users into a tactical production system, you usually find anyone not directly involved in that tactical process eschewing the system because there is too much “noise” between them and the content. A content hub creates a lower-common-denominator version of assets in tactical systems that should be readily accessible by anyone in the organization, preferably with a simple, clear interface that requires little or no training to use.

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by The future of video on the web | ChrisScott.org

The future of video on the web | ChrisScott.org — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:10:49 +0000

[...] video based content. And, of course, all of the data from a particular clip can integrate into the Semantic Web seamlessly. RDF links and TME generated relations could easily be used to automate the association [...]

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by Guy Valerio

Guy Valerio — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:47:04 +0000

Good post Chris.

@Martinbrousseau
> “The best “maintenance” tool will be the winner. ;-) ”

Great point.

Guy

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by chris

chris — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:04:28 +0000

@Christopher Hill It the hottest in terms of what I hear at conferences, tutorials, etc. Even more so than the social media buzz, I would say. But sure it's nothing new; didn't the use of triples as facts start back in the 80's on Pascal?

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by Christopher Hill

Christopher Hill — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:35:54 +0000

You are right to worry a bit about why we want to be on the semantic Web, although I must say the “West coast Internet” strategy – which has lead to a lot cool things not to mention wealth – is often jump first figure out the monetization later. What mainstream publishers are failing to grasp is that the Internet means you are in new businesses. Google has a killer search engine as a means to collect detailed data about people, their relationships to each other, and their content interests. This is also why they run YouTube at a net loss but really don’t seem terribly upset about it. They understand that what I view on YouTube gives them lots of possible monetization opportunities directly AND indirectly.

Publishers have got to realize that the content they deliver is only a small fraction of what they need to monetize on the Web. You need to understand the relationship of the content to other content and the people consuming it. As it stands, most publishers have such a rudimentary understanding of the content and their audience that they can’t even consider alternate mechanisms of monetization.

Google built up a lot of data around search, figured out how to use that data to do things like suggest good content for me… but then also use that data to monetize advertising. How many publishers have even tried to build a framework for understanding content consumption? Without that they rely on third parties to do their advertising.

Funny you talk about the semantic Web as “the hottest thing.” I wonder if this time is for real? I am a bit older than you and recall that this was all-the-rage emerging in the late 90s with the XML community: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/03/07/buildingsw.html. But this time around the level of concern may be a bit higher…

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by Orgdata – The Attributes of Football « Wiring Content

Orgdata – The Attributes of Football « Wiring Content — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:24:09 +0000

[...] In his recent exemplary article, my colleague Chris Scott posted the question ‘Semantic Web ? … and whilst I don’t intend to retread what he describes in great detail, there is much in there that will help us here, as we’re beginning to make the journey towards the world of ‘Linked Data’. [...]

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by Diane Burley

Diane Burley — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:38:37 +0000

Nice expository Chris! It seems to me that speciality publishers have more to gain than most since they can create URIs to describe certain activities germaine to their subject. Allowing them to be the “authority file” of that world, so to speak — which is the role they used to play until the democratization of the Web. Since no one knows when the Semantic Web will catch fire — it is merely smoldering in small circles — it may be possible for publishers to wait — however can they afford to play catch up twice? And that answer is definitively no.

Comment on Semantic Web? What’s in it for me? by Martin Brousseau

Martin Brousseau — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:15:44 +0000

Excellent thought Chris! This is exactly the kind of question we first need to ask ourselves in order to promote the real value of linked data and the overall vision formulated 20 years ago by Tim Berners-Lee.
Standards and technologies behind this vision are becoming mainstream but the business value of it is still fuzzy, like any new “gadget”. Here at Nstein, we have a role to play in this, to clearly show what is this value, where it comes from and how to implement it.
I think we should have a wide angle view of all possibilities these standards and technologies offer in the on-line industry. Also, I strongly think that – as of today – the Semantic Web is largely about consuming linked data sources, and that linked data sources needs to be semantically enriched with text-mining and text analytics solutions in order to annotate unstructured content with structured and rich semantic metadata. Among these Semantic Web technologies, TME5, Nstein’s text-mining engine will be a key player!
In a near future, on of the challenge will be to keep these linked data sources accurate and up to date in a timely fashion. This is where the immediate value of any linked data will come from. Here again, we have some ideas. The best “maintenance” tool will be the winner. ;-)