Talk:Enterprise content management

message: Content management and media asset management are two different diciplines under the heading of "Digital Asset Management. The definition is too broad. (drvannie(
:Digital assets are a subset of media assets, which are a subset of content. Other than that, What's the difference? If anything, that redirect should be reversed.
If i may suggest,
* "Content" is anything analog (paper, tape recording, video) OR digital (same things but in a digitally encoded form) authored (recorded, written, filmed etc.) for any purpose.
* "Media" is a subset of Content including things not written .. so photos, video, audio .. but still can be analog OR digital
* "Asset" is a subset of Content including ONLY digitally encoded data that has had DRM applied to assert ownership of it.
So Media Asset Management should be a subset of Asset including only digitally encoded photos, video, and audio
So I suggest that Content Management is not a subset of Digital Asset Management but is rather the superset of it. 
I am taking a look at the pages related to this to all this with a view to rationalizing them all.
 — vulcan_ (talk contrib) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: definition is too broad

message: Completely revised and expanded article on ECM based on this source: 
http://www.project-consult.de/files/ECM_Handout_english_SER.pdf  [[85.182.128.2 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I need some help to integrate the images as thumbs without uploading them again. The references to the images in the German wikipedia are at the appropriate positions in the article text. Thanks. 
Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustrations for the article

message: AIIM international has changed the definition of ECM twice this year. A history of the definitions can be found here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:ECM-Definition
This list is regurlarly updated.
Kff 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of ECM definition 

message: Removed. The article was released by the original author. 213.39.198.87 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Copyright violation

message: I wikify tagged this article because it is poorly formatted, horribly long and jargon-ish Paul 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: Is this page a podium for AIIM, or an explanation of Enterprise Content Management?
Just because an organization decides to change definitions does not mean that the article should follow suit (an explanation of changes would provide sufficient insight).
And to be fair, ECM is child of KM, which is a child of EDM, which is a child of text retrieval, so ECM should be a fairly easy concept to explain, once the reader has understood the definition of structured and unstructured data (rather than try to avoid technical terms, why not, atleast provide definitions). The functions of any system on the market are similar, and the technologies are as well - files (located on a designated area on the file system, in a defined 'vault', in a database, or dispersed across the system), a database (perhaps relational), an index (for text retrieval, although newer indexing systems can provide retrieval of a wider range of file types and data types), an interface (usually forms) for entering descriptive data and for querying the repository.
The article suffers from reference to AIIM, and not to too many entries regarding product and software companies that offer solutions in this market niche. Cut out the clips of articles (maintain references as references).StevenBirnam 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Podium for AIIM?

message: This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and needs to become more accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? 

message: The Link to AIIM in the section external links was deleted several times as Linkspam! AIIM is an international association, which defined the term ECM in 2000, runs market studies and publishes on ECM, and is source of the definition. This Link is no Linkspam. If Wikipedia administrators regard the link as Linkspam, I propose to replace as well every mentioning and every text from AIIM by the term "the association, which defined ECM, but should not be mentioned or linked on Wikipedia" (remember TAFKAP) ... AIIM by the way has about 9000 members. Probably one of these will have an interest that the source of the Wikipedia article is mentioned as link. Happy New Year80.171.34.194 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I should have been more careful with my wording, instead of just using the same wording that other editors used.  It's an off-topic link that appears to have been added to promote the organization, and should be removed. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINKS. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it is no "off topic" link, because it links the article to the association, which defined ECM. AIIM is the majoor source for all market studies, communities, training and publications about ECM. It is not to promote the association, but to give the reader access to the original source of ECM. 213.39.194.105 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all irrelevant.  This article is about "enterprise content management." See WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK for more precise discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If AIIM is the industry body for ECM and contains as much information, papers, events, news, etc. as suggested, then surely the exception of a link to an official page of the article's subject stands.See WP:ELNO. On that basis, I think it should be included. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That exception applies to the article on Association for Information and Image Management, which already contains the link, and that article is already linked from this article.  No need to repeat the EL here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, well made ... the wikilink to AIIM is clear and they're cited in the opening paragraph ... so on that basis the external link should go. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Link to AIIM is LINKSPAM ?! 

message: The link to Gartner, in the references, has expired. I'm not an expert in ECM, can't provide a new link, but replacing the link with a similar link would be useful - although imho, in general, Gartner is more marketing bla-bla than real information. X10 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They've closed their media site, so I'll look tomorrow for where the reports are now housed. As to use of the reports, it is effectively a hot or not review of the market in any given year - and clearly when a vendor achieves the upper left (so called magic quadrant) they use it in their marketing. However, given that Gartner is a recognised as an authority, it is notable to cite them (so long as it doesn't get repetitive, eh?). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hot or not, that's the reason I clicked the link in the first place :-)   Their "magic quadrants" are mostly just that: magic, not factual. Thanks for fixing it anyway. X10 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Gartner report expired 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enterprise_content_management&diff=next&oldid=284960169
These are changes in a direct citation ... The section about Master Data has to be placed somewhere else ...!!
85.182.128.2 (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in a direct citation ?! 

message: What does 'content' mean? The word occurs in the article title, but is simply repeated without explanation in the opening sentence of the article, and in the 'Definition' section. A definition of this term is required.119.142.152.236 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a wikilink, but still, some sort of explanation might be helpful. There's a tendency in this article to assume that jargon like this is understood.119.142.152.236 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a definition for 'Content' 

message: Hi, I am interested in doing a piece on ECM on another Wiki page (another language) After rading the Wiki guidelines I just wanted to make sure that I was not infringing on any copyright or anything, if I choose to translate some of the text directly? (I will not be translating the whole thing, I think it is a bit messy and needs a cleanup before this can be done).
Thanks in advance for your help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Thorstensen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Translating text from here and placing it another language Wikipedia is certainly possible. Just follow the guidelines provided at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects, so that the contributors to the text here are appropriately attributed and there are no copyright concerns. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles use and cite this multilingual source: ECM Enterprise Content Management, Ulrich Kampffmeyer. Hamburg 2006,  (English, French, German), http://www.project-consult.net/Files/ECM_White%20Paper_kff_2006.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.128.2 (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation to another language 

message: I've completed a copy edit of the page.  I think it's a bit less confusing now, or at least, as non-confusing as the topic can get for the lay reader...  It's an inherently jargon-filled topic. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit

message: While copy editing, I noticed two outstanding copyright issues.
# While I understand that Mr. Kampffmeyer originally wrote this article and released his own papers under appropriate licenses, the "Characteristics" section contains a lengthy quote from ComputerWoche, the German version of Computerworld.  While Mr. Kampffmeyer may have written the article, the published article's copyright is likely to be held by ComputerWoche.  My understanding of copyright law is that the copyright of a work-for-hire, such as a magazine article, belongs to the publisher, not the author.  If this is true in Germany, and holds for the referenced article, then the lengthy quotation is difficult to justify under Fair Use... and in this case, Mr. Kampffmeyer's release would be insufficient, as if it was a work-for-hire, he would not hold the copyright and therefore could not release it.
::The article in ComputerWoche was based on an earlier presentation and article by my company PROJECT CONSULT. ComputerWoche had no excklusive publication rights. The same applies to the book, which was a source of this article, which was published by PROJECT CONSULT. Dr. Ulrich Kampffmeyer, Kff (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meatime, the citation was removed with the comment: "removing excessive quote in violation of WP:NFC)". There is no violation of the WP:NFC. Please note, that the citation has been no violation of copyrights!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kff (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: This section of the article is largely taken from a 2009 Gartner report that seems to have dated information, as it makes predictions about 2008.
Also, it has a plethora of name-dropped companies. I was sorely tempted to remove most of them; many of them are likely to fail the notability test.  Each company should have a reference attesting to its notability; that reference should be from a reliable trade publication, or better yet, mass media outlet—not a press release or company website.  In order to be included, the company should be generally notable in the field, and this is the best way to prove it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECM market development 

message: About Autonomy, mentioned in this sentence:
Vendors recognized by the 2009 Gartner ECM Magic Quadrant include Alfresco, Autonomy, Day Software, EMC, Ever Team, Fabasoft, HP, Hyland Software, IBM, Laserfiche, Microsoft, Newgen Software Technologies, Objective Corporation, Open Text, Oracle, Perceptive Software, SAP, Saperion, Siav, SpringCM, SunGard, Systemware, Xerox and Xythos Software.[6]
Is it this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy_Corporation
If I am right, then link in previous sentence must be corrected.--Palapa (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonomy 

message: "There are only few examples of successful implementations whereby a shared repository for documents and web content are managed together.[citation needed]."
Well, Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a successful implementation of a shared repository for documents. ----~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.117.96 (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't disagree more. In fact I would say just the opposite, Wikipedia is probably one of the MOST AMAZING examples of a shared repository. When you consider the number of articles, the number of editors, and the overall quality of the repository... I know I'm sounding kind of like a Wiki Fanboy but so be it. If your definition of a document repository is that it has to follow the conventional rules where people have to check documents in and out, where edits have to sit in a queue and be confirmed, etc. than yes Wikipedia isn't that kind of repository but to me what matters isn't the process, it's the actual content that makes a repository and Wikipedia kicks ass in that regard. I would also add that Wikipedia shows how a bottom up method (similar to agile methods in software development) can work so much better than the conventional check-in/check-out highly controlled style of repository. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 

message: I think ECM has evolved during the last years, and mainly the Workflow / BPM aspects: both support the creation of content (typically the workflows supporting scanning) and the use of the content (use the right documents in a process, present all the related documents to support decision taking etc).
Advanced Case Management brings additional ideas for making sure that a 360 degree view is possible, not just on a document, but on the complete file/case.  It also emphasis the need for flexibility in defining the processes/flows and the need for incorporating additional media (email, chats, phone and voice recordings).
   huysmansa@advalvas.be   94.224.204.253 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of ECM: should Advanced Case Management be mentioned ? 

message: I think the divergent content in the article reflects a bit the industry, and it reflects that ECM by itself is an umbrella Terms created by Contractors and Vendors, segmentation is Key across the market to foster sales.
I was triggered by these marketese B2E, B2G, G2B and so on so forth, which reflects that everything is Enterprise oriented, within that WCM is even a separate planet. Reality is that huge parts of ECM is actually B2E.
This ever enlarging definition from AIIM has the same prob of over-reaching new areas of conquest and reflects the same prob of contractors and vendors. 
Sadly Most current active new technology developments such as extensive (e.g. petabyte scale) B2C, C2C requirements have never been taken care by average ECM implementations (i.e. wikipedia is not representative of average ECM, not even WCM).
NoSQL Document Databases reflects the incapacity of scaling of vendors, and managing "unstructured content" which has always been out of reach (see IR and NLP). 
If you go in the opposite corner of OCR, it rarely try to be content aware  (e.g. to integrate across different ECM fields), i.e. an OCR for a form is quite a different thing than an OCR for a graph of numbers, same fragmentation pattern appears (see license scheme of one of those nifty commercial tools ..).
This stress on Workflow, process and documents reflects a generation of applications created around these technologies. For example Currently the distinction between document, html, xml, metadata and data is blurring. 
New trends reflects more API, virtualization, SAAS, which are little mentioned across this article, and to the extent of here are just adding extra marketese.
There are a lot of Fat Old Vendors slowly dying off, standards never achieved (like the read and write web), and pathetic compatibility across, but the same was there  some 15 years ago ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyredeagle (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The E of ECM 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Enterprise content management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203120424/http://www.accusoft.com:80/news_accusoft-pegasus-celebrates-20th-anniversary.htm to http://www.accusoft.com/news_accusoft-pegasus-celebrates-20th-anniversary.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified