Oliver Crow writes:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Content-wire Research wrote:
>
>> what about browser based? With SOA to become dominant environment in the
>> future, can the home based/remote user expect a tool that support file
>> handling via browser/IP? Is this a common feature in typical DMS, in you
>> experience? I know there are some tools that support it, by I dont think
>> it has been the norm historically
>
> My impression is that most older documement management systems were built
> as client-server apps, but recently have been migrating to browser based
> interfaces.
>
It is kind funny but this is true. We are going backward. Browser-based
interfaces have document size limitation.
We are developing DMS called Kitano based on Zope. Web-based UIs are for
access not for uploads.
Kitano is RMS, Records management. Well, that is what is built as requested
by non-profit clients we have.
>
>> re: mass import In my experience 'import' functions are not limited by
>> size, ie the volume of files is irrelevant to the system design (other
>> than hardware and cache size perhaps) the function is simply 'select file
>> to be imported' and 'import files' - two clicks - please correct me where
>> I am wrong
>
> If you have a library of 10,000 documents (for example) the feature needs
> to be 'recursively import these directories'. I haven't seen that in open
> source CMSs, but maybe I'm not looking at the right ones.
>
We do simple things. We recursively "siphon" them but we do not replicate
folder structures.
We are developing "offlined" RMS meaning we could map and archive. It is
like your iTunes "import" or "keep where they are". Well, few extras like
expiration, retirement policy, local roles and built for large number of
docs and records.
>
>> I think the benefits of your suggested functional CMS extension could
>> outweigh the cost of buidling a straight DMS, although the amount of
>> thinking around it would have to be marginally more intensive, allowing
>> of course for some situations when the option is not desired/preferred
>> for whatever reason
>
> As CMS architects it benefits us to think along these lines because we
> want flexible systems that can address the needs of a diverse user base.
> However, any system that we built would need to compete against a large
> number of already existing, mostly commercial, fairly mature document
> management systems. I would think the main audience for an open source
> DMS would be organizations that have not adopted commercial systems
> because they have tight budgets and can't afford the licensing costs --
> libraries, service oriented small businesses, and so on.
>
Our philosophy is "Specialized". Like Swiss knife, we do not address all
things just few important things well. If you are not satisfied with it, we
have other products that can work with.
Often, we see "feature bloating" and it is often a problem with open-source
CMS.
It is nice to get one thing done well. Users of RMS are quite different from
those of CMS.
Well, our development is funded by non-profit who wish to have stable and
simple RMS for themselves and other non-profit. By the same token, you are
right. Tight budget.
> Oliver
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.