Re: mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-21 (cms-related-terminology): CMS related terminology: not only CMS as content [MLW-LT Requirements Document]

Hi Dave,

2012/5/17 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> Hi Felix,
> Talking in terms of files or content item specifically makes sense in the
> technical specification. However in the requirements document, referencing
> the actual product classes, such as CMS, rather than just talking more
> abstractly about files, would resonate more clearly with readers of a use
> case or requirement who is trying to understand the benefit it might have
> for them.
>

I agree that it makes sense to reference the actual product class. However,
in my view this class is much larger than CMS, even if CMS is in the centre
for many in the group. That is the main purpose of this issue. In many use
case descriptions or data category descriptions, we refer only to CMS where
it would make sense to refer to content in general.



>
> So I'd be against such a blanket change since if we only talk in terms
> file formats it will be more difficult to many readers to map that into
> actual problems.
>

So what do you propose to include XML, "plain" HTML or other types of
content as well? Take for example this statement that defines "content
author":

"Author of web content. Typically uses an online editor that is integrated
into a CMS."

I think this is too narrow, in two senses: people do not only author web
content, but also e.g. XML which is then transformed into Web content. And
people do authoring without CMS.

Felix


>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
> On 16/05/2012 20:09, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-21 (cms-related-terminology): CMS related terminology:
>> not only CMS as content [MLW-LT Requirements Document]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/**International/multilingualweb/**lt/track/issues/21<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/21>
>>
>> Raised by: Felix Sasaki
>> On product: MLW-LT Requirements Document
>>
>> In many areas, the requirements document puts CMS in the centre, e.g. in
>> the use case "CMS-Side Revision Management". I propose that rather we talk
>> about content, that may be available in a CMS, an XML file or from other
>> pieces of content. If we agree on this, an action item is needed to go
>> through the whole document and change the terminology.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow