to a wide range of content objects both
within and outside traditional CMS
· Delivery/Publication. Provide content
to participating delivery servers and to
facilitate the publication and manage-
ment of delivered content.
· Site Management. Provide mechanisms
for monitoring and reporting on the use
of managed content; provide mecha-
nisms for automatically generating high-
level `site maps' depicting the relation-
ships of pages and objects to a depth of
at least four layers of referral.
ogether with the distributed institu-
tional structures of the university,
baseline functional requirements helped
determine the technical parameters of a
content management system.
· Federated Architecture. Multiple
independent servers running a standard,
accepted CMS software package put
together in coordination with a central
CMS support organisation.
· Interoperability. CMS systems must
interoperate as seamlessly as possible
with a wealth of existing content already
available through a number of well-
travelled and well-recognised Duke
campus Websites. System-driven man-
dates for change should be at the
discretion of the content creators,
· Integration. Because the level of tech-
nical expertise varies dramatically among
campus users, flexible integration with
third-party development and authoring
tools is critical. Some users will have a
high degree of technical expertise and
demand fine-grained control over their
content; some will have a low degree of
technical expertise and need to create
and deliver content in the most natural
and `matter of fact' fashion possible.
· Scalability. Because neither the size of
the user population nor the extent of
etc.) needed to support efforts to balance
creativity and flexibility with brand con-
sistency at the departmental, school and
· Flexibility. Make it easier for all Duke
Web efforts to support the full range of
Web content sources (development
tools, databases, etc.) and Web display
devices (graphical browsers, text-only
browsers, kiosks and emerging small-
screen platforms such as cell phones and
· Implementation. Give first priority to
the immediate needs of early adopters
and second priority to anticipated future
needs of an emerging CMS community.
he overall goals for the campus con-
tent management initiative defined a
discrete set of functional capabilities that
must be included in any system, whether
bought or built locally.
· Content Authoring. Provide for the
smooth and efficient creation and edit-
ing of content; integration with com-
mon editing and word processing tools;
ability to import existing content,
metadata, multiple file types.
· Presentation. Flexible use of common
development tools; creation or import of
templates, standard forms.
· Syndication. Support the sharing and
reuse of content across campus.
· Workflow. Support various forms of
workflow and facilitate the management
of content throughout its lifecycle (from
creation through publication and syndi-
cation to deactivation and archiving).
· Versioning. Provide revision control
mechanisms, both in support of collabo-
rative content manipulation and in sup-
port of change management and content
· Accessibility. Content stored or
indexed within content repositories must
be easily accessible during Website devel-
opment, and access needs to be provided
1. authoring (creating Web content in a
managed and authorised environment);
2. workflow (management of the steps
between authoring and publishing);
3. storage (authored content components,
in multiple versions, in a repository);
4. publishing (dynamic delivery of stored
content to the Web).
DUKE GOALS FOR A CONTENT
t Duke, as may be the case in any
widely decentralised organisation, the
capabilities of an enterprise software tool
with the wide impact of a content man-
agement system are demanding.The team
charged with identifying a CMS tool for
the university developed a list of key goals
driving the software selection process.
· Site Maintenance. Enable non-techni-
cal staff to update and maintain their
Web content more easily and efficiently
using a variety of computing platforms
and Web development tools.
· Consistency. Provide a consistent Web
site management environment that will
handle content creation, style, visitor
usability, policy, workflow, versioning,
and revision control for decentralised
Web infrastructures and content authors.
· Sharing. Facilitate the syndication
(sharing and reuse) of Web content, with
the appropriate editorial accountability,
by offering central facilities to index and
cache content that originates anywhere
on the Duke subnet.
· Automation. Reduce inaccurate, out-
dated, redundant or unauthorised
content through automated content
management processes, versioning and
· Accessibility. Make it easier for all
Duke Web efforts to achieve and main-
tain compliance with evolving standards
(ADA and W3 compliance, University
and departmental privacy policies, etc.)
and provide the tools (repositories of
approved templates, images and logos,