From a database publishing point of view, I don’t think you could get more ‘containerised’ content if you tried. This project relates to a large parts/component catalogue publisher, all of the data ‘lives’ in a number of database ‘objects’. Each ‘content’ object can be edited as can associated the associated ‘Metadata’. When it comes to publishing of the content, the relevant objects are exported from the database and sent via various ‘formatters’ depending on the style of the final content and end up in ‘new’ containers, be that PDF pages, printed data sheets, web pages or ‘the’ printed catalogue itself. A newer addition to the publishing pipelines is the ability for an ‘end-customer’ of the content owner performing a search on the database and requesting information contained in the various database ‘containers’ to be delivered to them as a PDF (container) or ePub ebook (container). I suppose you could classify this as a ‘service’ approach as the content owner will be charging for this extra ability.

The other project also shows that content will live in a variety of ‘containers’ during its life cycle. I am Project Managing this one where content has been living in a 30 year old Word processing system (WPS) as plain ASCII files and generally having been only printed to paper (latterly a PDF driver was introduced) – all very monospaced! The project covers moving the ASCII content into a particular XML specialisation – S1000D (container) – for the client to load into its newly commissioned database (container) where it will be combined with other XML content and metadata. Eventually the content will be ‘published’ as IETM’s (Electronic Technical Manuals) (container) for world-wide end-users who will if required, print pages to paper ‘locally’ if required.

So yes I can see a lot of different ‘containers’ being used along any publishing ‘pipeline’, although I am not sure I would truly class the original WPS ASCII content in the above example as being in a ‘container’ but there in lays the different interpretations of ‘what is a container’, after all isn’t HTML just plain ASCII with tags!!!

Hope this adds to the discussion.

I’m trying to understand what they are saying and not succeeding at it. Are they thinking publishing as if it only were processes and endless iterations? Too geeky for my understanding. I’m still a reader. A human one, I mean.

Are they thinking publishing in the same terms of search?

Liked you post. Much necessary.

Julieta

Would it be possible to have a phone call with you to talk about what my company is doing? I would truly appreciate your consideration and find your opinions extremely valuable.

We are about to release our universal version of Highlighter that will work on any website and any web-based e-reading platform.

Thank you again for your consideration.

-Josh

co-founder/CEO
Highlighter.com
602-740-9050

The public will only boycott what they have an alternative for and a favourite author cannot really be substituted.

I was thinking an alternative might be to try to engage authors and get them to have this clause excluded from their contracts but of course, the real solution is to work together to find a solution that doesn’t cripple either libraries or publishers.

As I teach in my e-book sessions, libraries and publishers are both struggling to figure out where the e-book phenomenon is heading. This 26 loan limit is a first try from a publisher trying to figure out how to survive and thrive in this new e-world. Positive discussion, not hurt or angry rhetoric, to help us work our way through to a mutually beneficial outcome. Now, is it too much to hope our state/provincial/national organizations will start it?