Purpose of the glossary

There is a lack of clarity and consensus within the content management
marketplace regarding even basic definitions. This causes considerable
confusion for potential CMS purchasers and implementers, and makes it
more difficult to share information and knowledge.

We therefore need a standard set of definitions for the field of CM,
a glossary.

The primary purpose of the glossary is to focus on those new to
the field of content management (see TargetAudiences for more on this).

We will provide business-focused, jargon-free definitions that will help people to:

• learn the key concepts underpinning content management
• understand vendor marketing materials
• bring together content management teams under the umbrella of a commonly-understood vocabulary
• develop more coherent tenders, RFIs and RFPs, and ideally more standardized verbiage in vendor proposals
• meaningfully communicate with others in the field of content management
• create a consensus set of language to underpin CMPros' "best practice" efforts

Scope of the glossary

The role of our glossary is to cover our topic _in depth_, defining
only those terms that fall directly within our sphere, and do so in considerable
detail.

In otherwords, we will do a few terms very well.

Specific guidelines:

• We will do a small number of key terms well, rather than many terms poorly
• Effort will be focused on terms that are explicitly within our field of content management
• We will inject our depth of knowledge into the definitions, in order to assist those new to content management
• We will not compete with other online sources (see below)
• There must be a clearly defined "boundary" for our glossary, so that it doesn't grow to be unmanagable

(See TermsToBeIncluded for a list of possible terms, based on this scope.)

Other glossaries

Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) has become the most comprensive (free)
online encyclopedia. It has publicly stated the aim of knocking over
Britannica and other commercial encyclopedias. Wikipedia already covers
the bulk of the IT field (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology).

Even with Wikipedia, there is a role for *specialist" glossaries,
such as our one on content management.

Questions and comments

JamesrR: comments?

TonyB: This is good. In our glossary, though, we should reference other relevant glossaries (esp. tech ones, since that's where people find a lot of impenetrable jargon and acronyms) beyond Wikipedia, not necessarily in-line in the definitions, but in some sort of codicil.

BobD: We have an initial list of glossaries that include CM terms on the CM Pros site and at CMS Review.

I agree that our technical glossary should reference other glosses, even quote them with attribution. But this seems counterproductive to our guidelines above for our outward-facing glossary.

___

Back to Glossary Guidelines