RE: Frame+SGML?

[Dan Emory <danemory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter: Although many of your points are well-taken, I contend that FM+SGML
should be considered for many enterprises who aren't currently interested in
SGML. Here are some of the reasons I say that:

1. It is a great productivity enhancer for writers. Virtually every document
of any consequence that I produce in my practice are created in FM+SGML,
using an EDD of my own design. The EDD takes care of all formatting
automatically, allowing the writer to concentrate on content rather than
style. In my experience, structured document authoring halves the required
writing time. Also, the interactive structure view is a real boon when
rearranging text, tables, or whatever. Making revisions is also much faster.

2. FM+SGML is an automatic enforcer of style guides. The EDD defines
structure, and the formatting of each element in each context. But it also,
in the post-authoring quality assurance stage, enforces the structure and
formatting. By reimporting the EDD back into a document with format
overrides turned on, every single formatting violation is removed (including
ad-hoc formatting of character strings within paragraphs), and every single
violation of the structure rules is found. This capability alone is worth
the added price of a FM+SGML license, because it drastically reduces the
amount of time that must be devoted to quality assurance.

3. Because formatting and structure are rigidly enforced, information
contained in documents produced with FM+SGML can be readily reused or
repurposed--a vital concern in many enterprises.

4. Metadata, in the form of attributes, can serve as a potent tool in
document management. For example, attributes can be used to record the fact
that a particular component was revised as the result of an ECO or other
change notification documentation. It's then possible to perform a search on
the ECO number to locate all components that were impacted by the change.
Attributes can also be used to provide authors with many types of formatting
options.

5. When XML takes off (and it certainly will) it's likely that many
publications groups that never thought about structured methodology will be
confronted with a corporate edict to convert all their documents to XML. If
their documents are already structured, conversion will be a relatively
simple process. Converting unstructured documents to XML using the feeble
and unreliable paragraph mapping method is a painful alternative. Tools such
as OmniMark can quickly convert almost any structured document to HTML, XML,
or whatever else may be required.

For all of these reasons, and many more that I have not mentioned, the
Return on Investment (ROI) numbers have shown over and over again that the
cost of going to a structured methodology is offset many times over by the
savings in labor costs, and the greatly improved capability to manage, reuse
and repurpose information.
==============================================================================
   
At 11:30 PM 6/16/99 +0200, Peter Ring wrote:
>If your customer has
>
>- many documents with a similar structure
>- many documents with a long lifetime
>- many documents that are published using several media (paper, web, cd-rom)
>
>then SGML might be a good idea, and FM+SGML might be part of the solution.
>
>OTOH, SGML might be a good idea without FM+SGML being a part of the
>solution; FM+SGML is not really an SGML editor, but rather a sophisticated
>composition engine for structured documents. While FM+SGML can be made quite
>convenient for SGML text entry, the price is steep compared to some of the
>true SGML editors, e.g. SoftQuad XMetal or emacs+psgml.
>  If the documents are fairly plain (or very similar) and content-driven
>(rather than layout-driven), you can build a nice publishing system from
>free software (emacs, psgml, Jade, TeX).
>  Actually, you can also use FrameMaker (without SGML) as the page
>composition backend in an SGML-based publishing system; you can convert SGML
>documents to MIF using Jade or OmniMark. This can sometime prove easier than
>FM+SGML application development.
>
>And maybe FM+SGML is a good idea without SGML; many formatting tasks can be
>automated if you work with structured documents. You don't have to involve
>SGML at all to get this advantage. Dan Emory has a paper that illustrates
>how a complex layout can be implemented using a structured document.
>
>If your customer goes for SGML, expect a substantial investment before the
>return shows up. Usually, a lot of business procedures will have to change.
>If your customer is an obvious candidate for SGML (lots of similar documents
>that are maintained often), a document managment system is also called for.
>
>Expect a steep learning curve (as if you didn't already climb one mountain
>to master FrameMaker) if you want to develop FrameMaker+SGML applications.
>Expect also a lot of nice and obvious solutions to problems that you used to
>solve with dirty, fragile, and complicated tricks in unstructured documents.
>
>Kind regards
>Peter Ring
>Forlaget MAGNUS A/S
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Framers@FrameUsers.com [mailto:Framers@FrameUsers.com]On Behalf Of
>> joanne grey
>> Sent: 16. juni 1999 16:05
>> To: framers mailing list
>> Subject: Frame+SGML?
>>
>>
>> Fellow Framers,
>>
>> I know that this is a wide-open question, so please don't be too
>> unkind.  I have a customer who is thinking of migrating to Frame+SGML,
>> but isn't sure of the advantages of doing so.
>>
>> I have no experience with it. Could someone with real world experience
>> (not just the marketing hype) help me out a little here?  I don't know
>> what to tell these people.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>      -joanne
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>> Joanne Grey        j_grey@writeangles.com
>> Write Angles       www.writeangles.com
>>
>> Only when you can be extremely pliable and soft can you be extremely
>> hard
>> and strong.        -Zen proverb
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________
>>  (un)subscribe send an email to majordomo@FrameUsers.com with subject of:
>>   Subscribe: subscribe Framers          Unsubscribe: unsubscribe Framers
>>              subscribe digest Framers                unsubscribe Framers
>>
>>     1999 FrameUsers Conference: http://www.FrameUsers.com/conference/
>>      Dr. John Warnock Keynote on Adobe and the Future of FrameMaker
>> _________________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
> (un)subscribe send an email to majordomo@FrameUsers.com with subject of:
>  Subscribe: subscribe Framers          Unsubscribe: unsubscribe Framers
>             subscribe digest Framers                unsubscribe Framers
>
>    1999 FrameUsers Conference: http://www.FrameUsers.com/conference/
>     Dr. John Warnock Keynote on Adobe and the Future of FrameMaker
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>
     ====================
     | Nullius in Verba |
     ====================
Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory@primenet.com
10044 Adams Ave. #208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
---Subscribe to the "Free Framers" list by sending a message to
   majordomo@omsys.com with "subscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **