TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: So now we are content engineers? From:Joe Pairman <joepairman -at- gmail -dot- com> To:Milan DavidoviÄ <milan -dot- lists -at- gmail -dot- com> Date:Sat, 9 Nov 2013 05:18:07 +0800
I found Joe Gollner's original definition, though he's updated it since
then: "The application of rigorous engineering discipline to the design,
development, and deployment of content management and processing systems." ( http://www.slideshare.net/jgollner/introduction-to-content-engineering-cci2008.)
You could look at Joe's blog (
gollner.ca ) for his current thinking. And Mark Baker summarizes his own
content engineering principles here: http://spfe.info/spfe-principles/ .
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Milan DavidoviÄ <milan -dot- lists -at- gmail -dot- com>wrote:
> Hmm... "principles of content engineering". I wonder what those might look
> like.
>
> --Milan DavidoviÄ
>
> Sent from my Yost 10
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Joe Pairman <joepairman -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> > Joe used it to refer to the application of engineering principles
> > to the design of end-to-end content processes and the accompanying
> > technologies (I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of it). Mark Baker
> seems
> > to define it in a similar way in his final paragraph.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.
