RE: Migrating CMS content from one server to another

Sent on behalf of Adriaan Bloem

>
> Subject:
> RE: [CMS] Migrating CMS content from one server to another
> From:
> "Adriaan M. Bloem" <[email protected]>
> Date:
> Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:41:40 +0200
> To:
> "'Mitchell, Christine L \(EM, PTL\)'" <[email protected]>, 
> "'James Robertson'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>
> To:
> "'Mitchell, Christine L \(EM, PTL\)'" <[email protected]>, 
> "'James Robertson'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>
>
>Well--
>
>I find myself agreeing with both James, Jerry and Christine, a lot of
>sensible points were made. Summing up for myself I think the main problems
>in using automated migration are: 
>
>- Inadvertently migrating the old structure; it's very hard to migrate
>(large amounts of) content without implicitly importing the old structure as
>well. In general, content isn't (yet) classified well enough to be migrated
>"smartly" to a new location based on the actual content; so if you want to
>migrate to a new content (or site) structure, which is often one of the
>reasons of the migration in the first place, it can only be automated to the
>extent of migrating an item (or a group) at a time (which does not
>necessarily mean copy/pasting by hand);
>
>- Breaking the content context, rendering it unintelligible; a content item
>may not make sense when taken from its original comfortable environment
>(both navigation, design and other content items); so if you do change
>structure and move content around, you still have to make sure it's still
>understandable in the new context, which again can only be done by hand;
>
>- The content itself may have to be restructured (e.g., when you migrate
>from a page-oriented system with lots of embedded HTML to a component-based
>XML system, there's no easy solution to classifying parts of the original
>file as sensible XML fragments) and in many cases content isn't "clean"
>content, it's mixed with design (especially in page-oriented CMS'es were
>often text, images and HTML are intertwined, but many XML based systems
>don't have a clean information architecture either and XML tags are often
>abused as a "higher level" kind of design elements).
>
>Which means the success of automated migration rather depends on the degree
>those three problems occur. In my experience, most migrations have to be
>done almost entirely by hand, for exactly the reasons James described. But I
>always investigate if at least partial automation is possible and what the
>outcome of the "time investment in automation vs. time saving in manual
>migration" equation is. Ideally, you'd be doing a migration of say, a
>database of 20.000 CD's and DVD's in an on-line store that have to be moved
>to a new eCommerce system. Then, automated migration makes a lot of sense,
>is feasible and worth the investment. Structured sites like those are ideal
>candidates.
>
>In the reality of most complex and diverse websites though, I'd be happy to
>finally see a situation where even automating the export of content from the
>old system would save time over manual cut & paste. Unless the main reason
>for a migration is features in a new system or updating the old system, but
>the structure and design of the site are fine, and then tools like Exorcist
>are great ;)
>
>In short, I'd say automating the migration would be great, if possible. I'd
>rather regard the cleaning up of outdated or underperforming content as the
>silver lining of a manual migration than see it as a good reason not to
>automate. Never just immediately choose either extreme of fully automated or
>fully manual though, but investigate options case to case.
>
>Adriaan M. Bloem
>__
>
>Project Leader Implementation CMS, ICS Webcommunication,
>& Internet Coordinator, Faculty of Law
>
>Leiden University
>Visiting address: Steenschuur 25, room C0.13
>Postal address: P.O. Box 9520, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
>Telephone: +31 71 527 7897
>
>
>
>  
>
>>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>Van: [email protected] 
>>[mailto:[email protected]] Namens Mitchell, 
>>Christine L (EM, PTL)
>>Verzonden: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 14:35
>>Aan: James Robertson; [email protected]
>>Onderwerp: RE: [CMS] Migrating CMS content from one server to another
>>
>>The reality is that meaningful migration of content is almost 
>>always cut-and-paste, although automated tools can help to 
>>some limited degree.
>>
>>I would have to disagree with this conclusion.  I have done 
>>both cut & paste migrations and automated migrations and the 
>>advantage of a good atuomation plan cannot be pooh-poohed.
>>
>>The real issue is that this isn't a technology problem:
>>
>>* In most cases, you will be redesigning your site as part
>>   of the migration. This eliminates any simple one-to-one
>>   mapping of content.
>>
>>If you plan properly, you can certainly map from one design 
>>to another. We had comment code in place that was used to 
>>clip just the content while leaving the old design elements 
>>behind. The content was then added to the new design 
>>templates automatically. It worked beautifully.
>>
>>* You will also want to review all content during the migration
>>   to ensure that only "good" content is transferred.
>>
>>This is true, but you don't need to cut and paste thousands 
>>of documents manually to accomplish this.  Your content audit 
>>can be completed before the actual migration takes place so 
>>that it CAN be automated.
>>
>>* This will involve having someone knowledgeable about the
>>   content to assess each and every page. A lot of content can
>>   probably be deleted, while other material will need to be
>>   rewritten or updated.
>>
>>True again. See above.
>>
>>Migration of content is certainly the most painful part of 
>>any CMS project. 
>>
>>Amen to that! 
>>
>>What you aren't looking for is an automated way of migrating 
>>existing poor-quality content. Instead, use this as an 
>>opportunity to review and improve the content, thereby 
>>delivering tangible benefits to end users of the site.
>>
>>These two goals are not mutually exclusive.  You can review, 
>>clean, purge and automate.
>>
>>In general, I'm against any form of "automated" migration 
>>tools, as it makes it too easy to ignore the content...
>>
>>This, of course, has to do with the project manager and the 
>>team doing the migration work and their emphasis on quality, 
>>not on the method, whether copy and paste or automation. You 
>>can certainly successfully automate a content migration, from 
>>database to database, from databse to file system, etc., if 
>>you lay the proper groundwork.  You will always have some 
>>manual clean up even with an automation but it can be MUCH 
>>less and much faster to employ some automation.
>>
>>Christine L. Mitchell
>>Penske Truck Leasing
>>Content Manager
>>610.775.6494
>>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
>>
>>Tension is who you think you should be. Relaxation is who you 
>>are. - Chinese proverb
>>
>>    
>>

-- 
Bob Doyle
Editor In Chief, CMS Review - http://www.cmsreview.com
Technology Adviser, CM Pros - http://www.cmprofessionals.org
CEO, skyBuilders - http://www.skybuilders.com
77 Huron Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-876-5678