Hi all, just some comments on what I've said Vs what have been said by others.
There are some things that I've left out in what I've said. One of them for sure very important "Delivery". I have spoken about Content Deployment (in CMS) and Information Access (in Portals), never delivery. If you notice, "Delivery" is an important quality of information access. It is basically contained within the Ability to manage deployment (CM Frameworks) and to provide access (Portal Frameworks). Discussing who owns the merits of "Delivery" (Portal Frameworks or CM frameworks) is of no use in my opinion; it merely blurs the merits of either type of Frameworks regarding "Delivery". As far I'm concerned any of them can be the engine of excellent delivery facilities for Intranets. Stewart Manley said: >My thinking behind this is that the #1 definition of portal (user >interaction model) grew over time as a result of experience and best >practice in presenting information, often (as you rightly observe) in a >personalized manner. Once common features started to emerge, you then saw >the development frameworks (#2 definition) to make building them easier and >to take care of the grubbier aspects of layout, UI behaviour, deployment, >management and all that stuff. You can see the close link with >personalization in the vendors have actually renamed the products from >personalization to portal servers without changing much. Although this can be true to some extent, the same can be said for Deployment engines of CM Frameworks. Stewart Manley said: >I don't think right now that these frameworks are provided by CMS vendors, >who are largely concerned with providing access to content in a manner that >supports personalization/portal as I described above, because many CM >vendors are just not interested in delivery. Oh yes they are and they always were. Assuring consistent and accurate delivery of content is part of managing it (CMS encompasses the process from creation of content till deployment). Probably not for Interwoven, but for instance one of the over prized benefits of Vignette was precisely its ability to scale up large Web Sites (isn't a Web Site a delivery medium?). Stewart Manley said: >You are right in that CM vendors who include delivery technology can do >some aspects of portal (group based personalization, for example), and >componentized templating can be useful in building portal UIs, so arguably >that might be seen as a "framework". Well, then you maybe speaking about most CM vendors. What I'm saying is that if you define the difference upon the basis of the consumers of information perception when they get to a site your stuck mate. Even in the technology used to make those HTML interfaces (templates or whatever). As I said the main difference between both is in the backend support for two totally different implementation strategies for an Intranet encompassing needs. Not in the delivery. End in end IMO, arguing the differences from the delivery point of view does not make much sense in fact it blurs the truth about the possibilities of each, Portal Frameworks and CM Frameworks. Both of systems can help one build an Intranet Portal, the point is what kind of Portal the customers want to build (Just the name Portal in a product is not enough unfortunately). The answer to this question can only be done within the scope of a strategy of a customer. This is when things start to get ugly and "sharks" play with words to .... Well sometimes. Best regards, Nuno Lopes Independent Consultant -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
