Talk:Digital asset management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Proposed merger of Digital Photo Management
I proposed merging Digital Photo Management into this page because it seems to cover a subtopic of the same field. As of now, there's not enough content to justify two separate pages, especially when we can just redirect.--Kchase02 (T) 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. · rodii · 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan to me also. Digital Photo Management is a smaller article, and the two would flow better as one page. -- 210.11.135.5 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (aka User:Calrion)
Merged.--Kchase02 T 07:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would call it media asset management. Photo management limit it only to a specific application. drvannie
I propose that DPM must be discussed under media asset management. There is currently nothing on MAM. (drvannie;21.11.2006)
- If the photo is digital, then it's a digital asset and falls under the category of DAM. DAM is a subset of Enterprise content management. I directed MAM to the ECM page and made a note about DAM on that page as well as a note about ECM on this page. If there is anything special about managing photos that are neither digital nor similar to managing any other type of document content, it should be mentioned on that page. Oicumayberight 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This page is directly lifted off another without credit
It has come to my attention that the bulk of the information in 'Digital asset management' was taken from a single source: http://www.techexchange.com/thelibrary/DAM.html.
That source is not credited on the page and furthermore, the article is old and there are no certifiable references to the many specific metrics it quotes and assertions it makes.
I suggest a complete overhaul. I'm not that knowledgeable about DAMs but am currently researching them for work but can work on it when that's complete if no one else is available.
Mahalie 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article seems very thorough and well written. If crediting techexchange.com is warranted, so be it. Perhaps the same author(s) from techexchange.com added it to the wikipedia. I don't think any of the information should be removed. The only things I think would make the article more useful is a list of specific solutions (hardware and software) and maybe subdividing the categories into separate pages (e.g. DAM workflow, DAM cataloging, DAM distribution, DAM commerce, DAM Legal). Oicumayberight 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well written doesn't make it encyclopedia material. The entire article reads like a sales pitch or a product presentation.
- Too much market-speak, too little fact. I say overhaul. --Ceriel Nosforit 10:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't have a problem with someone rewording the content, as long as the meaning of the content stays in one form or another. Oicumayberight 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] List of software packages
There is no link to a list of software, such as the one about Comparison of image viewers. Shall we make some? I did some research on the subject and I can contribute. Connectionfailure 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Merger of Digital asset management system
The DAMS article is largely replicative of work already here and I think the two concepts can still be treated well in a single article. I'm not thinking of a simple redirect, though, I'd like to capture a couple things from the DAMS page, if nothing else the two book references. Any thoughts on this, anyone? --Joe Decker 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge: No difference. Oicumayberight 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Did a few bold things in the merge, folks might want to look at the changes carefully to see if I've screwed anything up.--Joe Decker 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Digitizing Traditional Image and Fabrics section seems misplaced
The section titled Digitizing Traditional Image and Fabrics is off-topic and weirdly specific to fabrics, which is a pretty uncommon application of digital asset management. Should this be deleted or moved elsewhere? Libraryhead 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
