Content modeling is the process in which we determine where the content is coming from, the systems that manage it, who owns it, the operational considerations, and the structure of the content itself. Through this process, we are able to better identify standards, gaps, level of effort, and feasibility, providing the necessary inputs regarding content during the design and development process. Driving the content management foundation that enables a unified experience across devices and channels. Overall, you should be selling the value in the process itself and the expertise that created it. Not a deliverable. Afterall, the model itself is an artifact of the work. Providing a map for those that follow afterward. Why not? It’s not everything. However, wraps it up nicely.
I’ve recently been exploring the DITA model/standard more heavily, pros and cons, and I’m sad to say I still don’t have a strong opinion for or against and here’s why: * To make ample use of DITA content creators need to learn new ways to author content to create the relationships and architecture in the content that makes DITA worthwhile to use. * To make ample use of DITA CMS systems need to be capable of accommodating this new architecture. * To make ample use of DITA tech expertise is necessary to understand how to develop for the model. * To make ample use of DITA organizations have to re-engineer their technical environments and internal processes. * Rahel Anne Bailie has a great article (part of a larger DITA series) on the above here: http://intentionaldesign.ca/2013/07/07/dita-to-web-the-next-big-thing-part-2/ I like to think of myself as an extremely practical metadata/taxonomy professional. Therefore, when it… Read More »
I was recently asked why I use Dublin Core, rather than Schema.org, what follows is my response: The short version: In this field, you tend to be cautious about new standards. I think Schema.org is now almost 3-years old – Dublin core is well, old enough to buy beer in some states. For some context on just how many standards there are for metadata have a look at this, I hope I won’t be visiting schema.org in this graveyard of possibilities: Glossary of Metadata Standards (Indiana University) The Long version: Often times, standard choice depends on the purpose. Let’s start by saying, we do not use Dublin Core in the expectation of it being implemented in that way (although it would be nice), we primarily use it to keep our descriptive metadata schema architectures stable when we are designing them. Database architects are free to chose what standard they would… Read More »
A colleague just pointed me in the direction of a new report out on Art History’s transition (or lack thereof) to digital, written by Diane M. Zorich, for the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. Her report seeks to gain a deeper understanding of why art historians feel such “ambivalence” toward digital art history. Zorich covers the limiting infrastructure of these domains to the impacts that the “new” digital publishing model is having against the age old, “publish or perish” model. This change to digital is one that Art Historians have been very reluctant to embrace (in some cases even hostile). Digital is just a “trend” afterall, right?
Nerdy things I blog about for other nerdy nerds: information strategy (metadata and taxonomies), content strategy, Digital Asset Management and Content Management (DAM/CMS), technology transitions, business process management, professional development, social media privacy, and usability.