<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Best Reason for Re-Engineering Book Publishing &#8211; the Need for XML</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.teleread.com/2010/01/20/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/</link>
	<description>News &#38; views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:44:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-1201055</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=36619#comment-1201055</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more re the need to implement XML.

Could you please give some examples of &quot;innovative new authoring tools enable content to be created in XML using interfaces indistinguishable from Microsoft Word.&quot; I&#039;m aware of the companies that offer such tools in a separate system, but are there single tools that one can recommend to smaller publishers who want to develop skills inhouse rather than outsource them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more re the need to implement XML.</p>
<p>Could you please give some examples of &#8220;innovative new authoring tools enable content to be created in XML using interfaces indistinguishable from Microsoft Word.&#8221; I&#8217;m aware of the companies that offer such tools in a separate system, but are there single tools that one can recommend to smaller publishers who want to develop skills inhouse rather than outsource them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Abel, The Content Wrangler</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-1154782</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Abel, The Content Wrangler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=36619#comment-1154782</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m so tired of hearing publishers talk about why they aren&#039;t, shouldn&#039;t, can&#039;t adopt XML. The embarrassing fact is that many of the largest ones are already using it internally for all of the reasons Dev points out. 

Technical writers, trainers, and others have been doing it for years. A quick search of a few top XML content management consultants web sites yield client lists that include major publishing houses. Each one of the case studies documents how and why each publisher moved to XML.

It&#039;s really time to stop whining and start doing. As someone who has worked on these projects to shift the paradigm from old-school desktop publishing to XML-enabled writing in life sciences, medical, manufacturing, retail, and high tech firms (as well as government agencies and non-profit agencies) it&#039;s particularly ironic that publishers aren&#039;t the first to move to XML. It&#039;s the same &quot;excuses&quot; disguised as &quot;reasons&quot; many of my clients had: &#039;We&#039;ve always done it this way here,&#039; or &quot;We&#039;ve never done it that way here&#039;. Both are lame and do nothing to provide a positive return on investment to shareholders. 

For publicly-held publishing houses, this is a wake up call you need to pay attention to. It won&#039;t be long before the cat is out-of-the-bag and your shareholders realize you are wasting their investment dollars by failing to optimize your processes. 

XML publishing is about process optimization -- which is about profit, plain and simple. Sure, there are many other benefits -- especially to readers -- but the main reason to make this move should be to stop wasting money and move into the 21st century. Not doing so is doing a horrible disservice to your shareholder and investors -- and your employees, who cannot benefit from the extra money you&#039;d have to give raises if you stopped spending it unwisely.

This type of content creation, management, and delivery approach is not new. For 20 years the technical documentation industry has been doing all the hard lifting ... making mistakes and learning lessons, developing best practices, case studies, conference presentations, journal articles, books, research papers, guiding software vendors and creating standards. All publishers need to do is follow their lead. 

As I mentioned earlier, most often they need only look down the hall in their own building for the answer.

If you are interested in learning more, read Ann Rockley&#039;s book, Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy&quot;. You&#039;ll be guaranteed to have an a-ha moment!

http://www.managingenterprisecontent.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m so tired of hearing publishers talk about why they aren&#8217;t, shouldn&#8217;t, can&#8217;t adopt XML. The embarrassing fact is that many of the largest ones are already using it internally for all of the reasons Dev points out. </p>
<p>Technical writers, trainers, and others have been doing it for years. A quick search of a few top XML content management consultants web sites yield client lists that include major publishing houses. Each one of the case studies documents how and why each publisher moved to XML.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s really time to stop whining and start doing. As someone who has worked on these projects to shift the paradigm from old-school desktop publishing to XML-enabled writing in life sciences, medical, manufacturing, retail, and high tech firms (as well as government agencies and non-profit agencies) it&#8217;s particularly ironic that publishers aren&#8217;t the first to move to XML. It&#8217;s the same &#8220;excuses&#8221; disguised as &#8220;reasons&#8221; many of my clients had: &#8216;We&#8217;ve always done it this way here,&#8217; or &#8220;We&#8217;ve never done it that way here&#8217;. Both are lame and do nothing to provide a positive return on investment to shareholders. </p>
<p>For publicly-held publishing houses, this is a wake up call you need to pay attention to. It won&#8217;t be long before the cat is out-of-the-bag and your shareholders realize you are wasting their investment dollars by failing to optimize your processes. </p>
<p>XML publishing is about process optimization &#8212; which is about profit, plain and simple. Sure, there are many other benefits &#8212; especially to readers &#8212; but the main reason to make this move should be to stop wasting money and move into the 21st century. Not doing so is doing a horrible disservice to your shareholder and investors &#8212; and your employees, who cannot benefit from the extra money you&#8217;d have to give raises if you stopped spending it unwisely.</p>
<p>This type of content creation, management, and delivery approach is not new. For 20 years the technical documentation industry has been doing all the hard lifting &#8230; making mistakes and learning lessons, developing best practices, case studies, conference presentations, journal articles, books, research papers, guiding software vendors and creating standards. All publishers need to do is follow their lead. </p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, most often they need only look down the hall in their own building for the answer.</p>
<p>If you are interested in learning more, read Ann Rockley&#8217;s book, Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy&#8221;. You&#8217;ll be guaranteed to have an a-ha moment!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.managingenterprisecontent.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.managingenterprisecontent.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Adin</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-1153998</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Adin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=36619#comment-1153998</guid>
		<description>I find this article fascinating -- not because of its content but because of who wrote it. Aptara recently sought experienced U.S.-based STM (Science, Technical, Medical) editors to do copyediting and proofreading under a noncompete agreement and specifying high-quality editing. So far, so good. But then came Aptara&#039;s kicker: for copyeditng they would pay 80 cents a page; for proofreading 50 cents a page. Now add XML to the requirement. What will Aptara pay and editor to edit and code in XML? Based on what it offered for STM (and high quality STM editing means a rate of 3 to 5 pages an hour, or $2.40 to $4.00 an hour on Aptara&#039;s fee schedule), I would guess little more, if anything more. Aptara&#039;s fee schedule is a good example of what ails U.S. publishing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this article fascinating &#8212; not because of its content but because of who wrote it. Aptara recently sought experienced U.S.-based STM (Science, Technical, Medical) editors to do copyediting and proofreading under a noncompete agreement and specifying high-quality editing. So far, so good. But then came Aptara&#8217;s kicker: for copyeditng they would pay 80 cents a page; for proofreading 50 cents a page. Now add XML to the requirement. What will Aptara pay and editor to edit and code in XML? Based on what it offered for STM (and high quality STM editing means a rate of 3 to 5 pages an hour, or $2.40 to $4.00 an hour on Aptara&#8217;s fee schedule), I would guess little more, if anything more. Aptara&#8217;s fee schedule is a good example of what ails U.S. publishing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Topping</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-1153994</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Topping</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=36619#comment-1153994</guid>
		<description>Another benefit of an XML-based workflow is the ease of making content accessible to readers with disabilities. Structured content in the repository is virtually required to make good accessible content for the reader.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another benefit of an XML-based workflow is the ease of making content accessible to readers with disabilities. Structured content in the repository is virtually required to make good accessible content for the reader.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rebecca Springer</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-1153990</link>
		<dc:creator>Rebecca Springer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=36619#comment-1153990</guid>
		<description>I could not agree more, BUT I seriously doubt this will happen any time soon, mainly because those who actually do editorial production at most trade publishers are undertrained and underpaid. Hiring XML experts costs a lot more than print-centric editors and designers who will work for peanuts. In the short run it&#039;s too disruptive and will actually be more time-consuming than continuing with legacy systems and legacy staff. Bringing up O&#039;Reilly and Wiley as examples says nothing about how the big six run their operations. At least one still routinely works with paper manuscripts -- Track Changes is seen as the big innovation over there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could not agree more, BUT I seriously doubt this will happen any time soon, mainly because those who actually do editorial production at most trade publishers are undertrained and underpaid. Hiring XML experts costs a lot more than print-centric editors and designers who will work for peanuts. In the short run it&#8217;s too disruptive and will actually be more time-consuming than continuing with legacy systems and legacy staff. Bringing up O&#8217;Reilly and Wiley as examples says nothing about how the big six run their operations. At least one still routinely works with paper manuscripts &#8212; Track Changes is seen as the big innovation over there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: karen wester newton</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-best-reason-for-re-engineering-book-publishing-the-need-for-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-1153982</link>
		<dc:creator>karen wester newton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=36619#comment-1153982</guid>
		<description>Yes! I work at a legal and regulatory publisher, and we faced all these issues decade ago.  In fact, our system is SGML-based because it predates XML. You left out a primary benefit if single-source publishing-- corrections!  If your data (and books ARE data) reside in a secure XML repository, any corrections need to be done only once and can then flow out to all outputs. Believe me, we learned this one the hard way.  XML or SGML in a secure database is the way to go!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes! I work at a legal and regulatory publisher, and we faced all these issues decade ago.  In fact, our system is SGML-based because it predates XML. You left out a primary benefit if single-source publishing&#8211; corrections!  If your data (and books ARE data) reside in a secure XML repository, any corrections need to be done only once and can then flow out to all outputs. Believe me, we learned this one the hard way.  XML or SGML in a secure database is the way to go!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 374/400 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.teleread.com @ 2012-02-09 21:21:02 -->
