<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Mike Lowndes on Ariadne</title>
    <link>http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/authors/mike-lowndes/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Mike Lowndes on Ariadne</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/authors/mike-lowndes/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>Content Management Systems: Who Needs Them?</title>
      <link>http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/30/techwatch/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/30/techwatch/</guid>
      <description>Content management? That’s what librarians do, right? But we’ve already got a library management system (LMS) – why should we consider a content management system (CMS)?
The second initial is perhaps misleading – “manipulation” rather than “management” might better summarise the goals of a CMS. Content creation and content re-purposing are fundamental aspects which tend to lie outside the current LMS domain.
Actually, from the point of view of workflow (and to lesser extent content re-purposing), the CMS and LMS have much in common.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>