In talking with Ed about his post, I felt a little unhappy with the term general purpose CMS. It does differentiate RSuite from a CMS or system that is built specifically to output a particular format, like a WebCMS or an E&PS, true, but I woke up this morning thinking the peculiar term 'content centric CMS'. A content centric content management system? Is this a necessary term? Why I was thinking this took a little while to think through.
RSuite was conceived to be oriented toward content in XML form. That is, it considered the content (including metadata) first, as well as related management features such as workflow. RSuite then began to seriously consider other format types (binary assets), and we are now edging into the various output possibilities. It is a clear progression. With a very strong XML core, this outward expansion is natural and relatively straight forward. It is natural to move from XML to Web and other electronic outputs, and as editorial and production applications become more oriented toward XML (Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) this movement outward is very well timed.
Other systems have started with the output format or distribution type as their core organizing principle. As more outputs are added they expand along the edge of this shell to fit other output formats. But they also are compelled by customer demand for XML to build inward - toward content in a neutral XML format. This seems as if it would pose many technical problems, including much more retrofitting than if you had started with XML. I suspect several systems would have to start from square one to achieve a strong XML architecture.
So this is why I like the idea of a content oriented CMS - it is about the content then about the output. It is a very good bet that this is going to be the winning model - which is why, frankly, I'm working for Really Strategies, the developer of RSuite.
Comments