One of my big gripes with most content-oriented software is that it requires a big bang approach (see The First Step’s a Doozy). The basic premise behind most content software is roughly:
1. If you do all this hard work to perfectly standardize the schema of your content, perfectly tag it, and possibly perfectly shred it, then
2. You can do cool stuff like content repurposing, content integration, multi-channel content delivery, and custom publishing.
The problem is, of course, that the first step is lethal. Many content software projects blow up on the launchpad because they can’t get beyond step 1. Our first customer had been stuck on step 1 for 18 months with Oracle before they found Mark Logic. (We loaded their content in a week.) At a recent Federal tradeshow, we had dinner with some folks from Booz Allen who’d been trying to load to some semi-structured message traffic data into a relational database for months. We told them to swing by our booth the next day. Our sales engineer then loaded their content over a cup of coffee while eating a muffin and built a basic application in an hour. They couldn’t believe it.
In most companies — even publishers — content is a mess. It’s in 100 different places in 15 different formats, and each defined format is usually more of an aspiration than a standard. Once, at a multi-billion dollar publisher one of our technical guys actually found this sentence in some internal documentation: “it is believed that this tag is used to …” Only folklore describes the schema.
So when it comes to the general problem of making XML more rich — i.e., having more tags that indicate more meaning — many people take the same big-bang approach. “Well, step 1 would be to put all the content into a single schema (which alone could kill you) and run it through a dozen different entity, fact, sentiment, concept, summarization “extractors” that can markup the content and fragments of it with lots of new and powerful tags (which alone could cost millions).
Again, step 1 becomes lethal.
At Mark Logic we advocate that people consider the opposite approach. Instead of:
- Step 1: make the content perfect so you can enable any application you want to build
- Step 2: build an application
We say:
- Step 1: figure out the application you want to build
- Step 2: figure out which portions of your markup need to be improved to build that application
- Step 3: improve only that markup, sometimes manually, sometimes with extraction software, and sometimes with heuristics (i.e., rules of thumb) coded in XQuery
- Step 4: build your application and get some business value from it
- Step 5: repeat the process, driven by subsequent application requirements
I call this lazy XML enrichment. You could call it application-driven, as opposed to infrastructure-driven, content cleanup. I think it’s an infinitely better approach because it delivers business results faster and eliminates the risk of either never finishing the first step because it’s impossible, or having funding yanked by the business because it runs out of patience with an IT project that’s showing no ostensible progress.
At this point, I’d like to direct those of technical heart to Matt Turner’s Discovering XQuery blog where he provides a detailed post (code included) that shows an example of lazy, heuristic-based XML enrichment, here.
- Matt’s example show lazy enrichment because the only markup he needs for his desired application is related to weapons, so that’s all he adds.
- Matt’s example is heuristic-based because he devises a way to find weapons in XQuery, and then use XQuery to tag them as such.
