http://seradigm.co.nz/2009/09/16/im-trends-2-cmis-will-save-us.html Sense Making Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:57:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://seradigm.co.nz/2009/09/16/im-trends-2-cmis-will-save-us.html#comment-14021 Twitter Trackbacks for Seradigm » Blog Archive » IM Trends 2 - CMIS will save us [seradigm.co.nz] on Topsy.com Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:57:38 +0000 http://seradigm.co.nz/2009/09/16/im-trends-2-cmis-will-save-us.html#comment-14021 [...] Seradigm » Blog Archive » IM Trends 2 - CMIS will save us seradigm.co.nz/2009/09/16/im-trends-2-cmis-will-save-us.html – view page – cached One of the big challenges for Enterprise Content Management in the last few years has been the sharing of different content types. ECM covers records, documents, images, emails, forum posts, web content, lists, people profiles, and more recently blog posts, wiki pages, and microblogging. These content types were managed in different stores. Traditionally the only way to get single sourcing of content and sharing/reuse/blending of different content types across different stores was to buy all of the solution components from one vendor. Because of the fast moving nature of the industry even that was problematic as most of the players grew by acquisition, picking up different pieces of the ECM stack from companies they bought. Sometimes they weren’t well integrated in, and compatibility/reuse was only at a very surface level, or was technically difficult to implement. — From the page [...] [...] Seradigm » Blog Archive » IM Trends 2 – CMIS will save us seradigm.co.nz/2009/09/16/im-trends-2-cmis-will-save-us.html – view page – cached One of the big challenges for Enterprise Content Management in the last few years has been the sharing of different content types. ECM covers records, documents, images, emails, forum posts, web content, lists, people profiles, and more recently blog posts, wiki pages, and microblogging. These content types were managed in different stores. Traditionally the only way to get single sourcing of content and sharing/reuse/blending of different content types across different stores was to buy all of the solution components from one vendor. Because of the fast moving nature of the industry even that was problematic as most of the players grew by acquisition, picking up different pieces of the ECM stack from companies they bought. Sometimes they weren’t well integrated in, and compatibility/reuse was only at a very surface level, or was technically difficult to implement. — From the page [...]

]]>