Fusion ECM

I write this little post as I work with some guys to create an integration (mashup?  composite application? where are the lines exactly?) between Oracle ECM and a markup/viewer/annotation engine from another part of the Oracle tech stack.

I got to thinking about what makes redline markup, version comparison and anotation so different from tagging and discussion threadding?  After all, redlining, anotation, compare features have been part of apps for quite some time (e.g. "track changes" in MS Word).

Is it the fact that tagging is typically a bit "farther away" from the artifact all that separates the concepts? Tags are often stored as metadata (either actually or metaphorically) while markup is often stored as a separate file and then presented as an overlay layer on the artifact (if it is not stored directly in the artifact (e.g. "track changes")

You can already see a blending of anotation style markup with tagging (e.g. facebook's imagemap based tagging of parts of photos). 

So while I see a value to the "deep" editorial and collaborative review style capabilities of redlining/anotation/viewing technologies, I'm wondering where is the difference between these and a more generic tagging?  Difference of kind or just degree?

This article is profound for many reasons.  First it proves what many of us already know - the creation of content is increasing and increasingly decentralized.  This means that there is a flood of information coming on top of the flood of information which wich ECM vendors and solutions are already dealing.

It also means that the web 2.0 paradigm is adopted.  It's not really a question anymore of will it catch on.  Now the question has morphed into several questions including; "what will it become?" and "how can I make/save money with it?".  If the web 2.0 technologies are the enabling inputs, then the flood of information is the output. 

(image from here)

But the kind of information that is being produced is also very interesting to consider.  Disparate sourced information and information submitted from mobile devices or chat streams or even emails is characteristically different from other (call it "traditionally") sourced information.  The difference is the delta between a twitter and a blog post  and an online masters thesis.

While web 2.0 tech has enabled more people to create information and content, that content is typically smaller, shorter and more specific to a context than other content. 

<prediction alert> I believe that this trend will continue and grow even as the quality of content gets richer, the character of content will continue to be more atomic </prediction alert>

What that means for ECM vendors is that mashups and information compositing will only grow in their importance.  The only way we'll be able to get good business intelligence is to aggregate wide-sourced (many disparate people/locations/applications) yet atomic information and analyze the aggregate while somehow maintaining or creating a context that provides the critical "flavoring" and nuancing of the analysis outputs.

Storing, categorizing, indexing, correctly aggregating, and providng meaningful views (think beyond the dashbord here folks) to atomic content as well as aggregates are all places where ECM vendors have to provide real solutions.

If mobile communications companies are getting into the game of information creation and consumption, having a compelling management story is important.