caBIG Clinical Information Suite

doctorlanguidInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

8 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

153 εμφανίσεις


Center for Biomedical Informatics and Information Technology

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

Information Management


DITA Tools

Recommendation

Version 0.
0
6

(Draft Document)

Prepar
ed by
:

Steve Manning

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

IM
Team

January
12
,
2011

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
ii

Table of Contents

1.

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
.............

1

1.1.

Backgroun
d

................................
................................
................................
........

1

1.2.

Document Purpose

................................
................................
.............................

2

1.3.

Audience

................................
................................
................................
............

2

Scope

................................
................................
................................
........................

3

2.

Issues, Solutions, and Functionality Gaps in Current Tools

................................

4

3.

Tooling and Requirements

................................
................................
.....................

7

3.1.

Authoring Tools

................................
................................
................................
..

8

3.2.

Content Management Tools

................................
................................
.............

12

3.3.

Review Tools

................................
................................
................................
....

16

4.

Tool Candidates

................................
................................
................................
....

17

4.1.

Authoring Tool Candidates Overview

................................
...............................

17

4.1.1

oXygen XML Author

................................
................................
...............

17

4.1.2

expeDITA

................................
................................
...............................

18

4.1.3

JustSystems XMetaL

................................
................................
.............

19

4.1.4

easyDITA

................................
................................
...............................

20

4.1.5

Xopus

................................
................................
................................
.....

21

4.2.

CMS Candidates Overview

................................
................................
..............

22

4.2.1

Alfresco with Componize

................................
................................
........

22

4.2.2

DocZone

................................
................................
................................

22

4.2.3

easyDITA

................................
................................
...............................

23

4.2.4

Vasont

................................
................................
................................
....

23

4.3.

Collaborative Review Candidates

................................
................................
.....

23

4.3.1

DITA Content Collaboration

................................
................................
...

24

4.3
.2

XMetaL Review

................................
................................
......................

24

4.3.3

Vasont Reviewer

................................
................................
....................

25

4.3.4

oXygen Author v12

................................
................................
.................

25

4.3.5

easyDITA

................................
................................
...............................

25

5.

Tool Ranking

................................
................................
................................
..........

26

5.1.

Authoring Tools

................................
................................
................................

26

5.2.

Content Management Tools

................................
................................
.............

27

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
iii

5.3.

Review Tools

................................
................................
................................
....

28

6.

Recommendations

................................
................................
................................

29

6.1.

Authoring Tools

................................
................................
................................

29

6.2.

Content Management Tools

................................
................................
.............

30

6.3.

Review Tools

................................
................................
................................
....

30


caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
iv

Revision History

Name

Date

Reason For Changes

Version

Steve Manning

December
29, 2010

Initial
(skeleton)
draft
.

0.0
1

Steve Manning

December
29, 2010

Completed tools rankings with team
input

0.02

Steve Manning

December
30, 2010

Revised with additional team input

0.03

Steve Manning

January 4,
2011

Completion of full draft with all text
and for

team review.

0.04

Steve M
anning

January 10,
2011

Revised following additional feedback

0.05

Steve Manning

January 12,
2011

Added Pilot Costs

0.06





caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
1

1.

Introduction

1.1.

Background

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), through its Center for Biomedical Informatics and
Information Tec
hnology (CBIIT) and Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG®)
program, is embarking on an innovative project to support the ambulatory oncology
clinical care community and the software vendors serving this community. Specifically,
NCI is developing a ser
ies of open
-
source software specifications and modules, referred
to as “business capabilities”, which will extend and enhance existing Electronic Health
Record (EHR) solutions to facilitate more efficient ambulatory oncology treatment and
bridge it to rese
arch and care. Collectively known as the caBIG® Clinical Information
Suite, these capabilities will be developed iteratively over the next 12 months and are
funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act.


Development

of this capability is expected
to result in improved care to cancer patients
and clinician efficiency, as well as advance NCI’s objective of interoperability in, and
between, research and care. Given appropriate consent, data obtained in the clinical
cancer community will be accessible
to researchers, advancing the practice of patient
care, and leveraging the national investment in healthcare information technology for the
benefit of research.

The caBIG® Clinical Information Suite will comprise the caBIG® specifications and
software mod
ules developed to make up the oncology
-
extended Electronic Health
Record (EHR) capability.

Recognizing that the provider landscape is highly diverse, NCI will provide a broad
spectrum of capabilities that can deliver value to a variety of stakeholders, inc
luding:



providers fully invested in an existing vendor EHR that simply wish to collect
structured data, from an ambulatory oncology context, that they can then provide
to their EHR vendor



EHR vendors

seeking to meet the requirements of ambulatory oncology
customers

The caBIG
-
developed capabilities will include:



a validated requirements document



a set of structured use cases and service specification documents, freely
available and based on the requirements document validated by NCI with
oncologists and othe
r key stakeholders. These documents can be used to guide
development to
facilitate both

oncology
-
specific functionality and enhanced
interoperability.



a number of software modules including both clinical and administrative
functionality. These modules wil
l include key oncology functionality identified as
requirements by
ASCO and

NCI as well as "back
-
end" capabilities that are not
exposed to users,
including standards
-
based health information exchange.
These software modules will be released incrementally,
under a “non
-
viral” open
caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
2

source license, i.e., they can be incorporated, without restriction, by EHR
vendors and others into both open
-
source and proprietary E
H
R software.

The Information Management Discipline will support the creation and publication of t
he
documents, specification, and other artifacts.

1.2.

Document Purpose

The purpose of this document is to outline the
caBIG Clinical Information Suite

Project
Information Management
Discipline’s recommendations for DITA tools
.


1.3.

Audience

Internal stakeholders

a
re targeted as the audience for the
IM
Scope and Vision of the
caBIG Clinical Information Suite

project.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
3

Scope

The scope of this document includes the following
tools
:



DITA/XML Authoring



DITA/XML Component Content Management



Collaborative Review


caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
4

2.

Iss
ues, Solutions, and Functionality Gaps in
Current Tools

Our fact
-
finding and needs analysis to date has uncovered a number of recurring

artifact
management
issues (common issues for the teams) that have a negative impact on
team productivity

in creating an
d publishing artifacts
. The following tab
le lists the issues,
and describes

the

general

Content Management (
CM
)

functionality
that would resolve
these issues
.



No.

Issue

CM
/DITA

Functionality/Solution

1

There are multiple data repositories the
caBIG CI
S

team members need to search
to locate their artifacts including:



NCI wiki



caBIG CIS

wiki



caBIG CIS
JIRA
repository



Google docs





As a result, the teams have to spend
excessive time searching for artifacts and
related information.

The
CM

platform can stor
e and manage a
wide variety of document types and formats.
This would give
caBIG CIS

users a single
point of access to locate their artifacts. The
system would also provide:



access control



check
-
in/check
-
out with full file locking



audit history



version c
ontrol



search



a more friendly and efficient user
interface.

2

When
caBIG CIS

team members locate
artifacts, they cannot always be sure of the
following:



Is it

the right artifact?



Is it
the current version?



What is the current

status of the artifact
(fina
l or in draf
t)?

As a result, they are using additional time
sending emails, making calls, etc., to
determine whether or not they have the
correct artifacts.

The
CM

platform would allow users to attach
metadata to artifacts to locate
them

in a
dynamic envir
onment. Metadata can provide
the following attributes to the various
artifacts:



Author



Status



Version



Dates



Keywords



etc.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
5

3

The current artifact management
repositories do not provide audit trails

to
support the following:



Who has reviewed the document(s)
?



When (dates)
were
the artifacts
reviewed?

The current tools, while providing
rudimentary access control and versioning,
do not provide the history of a document
needed for full project control.

The
CM

platform can maintain metadata for
all versions o
f artifacts, as well as reporting
capabilities to provide a full audit trail on all
artifacts within the environment.

4

No defined taxonomy.



When someone thinks they know
where a document should be, they
can’t always find it.

Extra time is spent trying to

locate
information in poorly defined repository
hierarchies.

The
CM

platform can provide robust delivery
mechanisms for creating and maintaining the
hierarchy of the repository. You can organize
your content based on a defined taxonomy.
You can also pro
vide views of that content
based on different facets or overlays of that
taxonomy.

5

No visibility on status or availability



Stakeholders are not always aware
that artifacts are available.



They are not aware when a document
has been published.



Users are

not aware of when artifacts
are made available for review or are
published as deliverables.



COTRs cannot always find the
deliverable artifacts for project tracking.


The
CM

platform can provide a range of
workflow capabilities that allow users to:



Automa
tically route content for review.



Automatically notify users when a
document is published or changed (or
any other status changes).



Users can subscribe to be notified of
changes to artifacts.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
6

6

No collection management



No way to get a list of artifacts
as
sociated with a specific business
problem or function.



Artifacts are stored in different
locations and there’s no easy way to
package them into a set.



There is no viable method to trace the
status of a document set. For
example, there is no systematic way

to
determine if the full specification stack
has been signed off for a specific
service. This leads to the additional
action of polling the DSL’s.

The
CM

platform can provide the metadata
assignment and reporting tools to allow
artifacts to be tagged base
d on their project
taxonomy. A user would then be able to
search on all deliverables that are related to a
specific business functions or services and
determine the status/etc. of each document.

7

Searching is limited



There is no easy way to search for
a
rtifacts.



Search is limited (no federated search).

There is no way to search across the
various repositories to locate artifacts.

A single repository would eliminate this issue.
CM
s can include the ability to search across
multiple formats (Word, PDF, etc
) to locate
content in different types of files.
CM
s also
provide different types of search, including
full
-
text search and metadata
-
based search.

8

Limited document management
capabilities.



There is incomplete locking

capability

in GForge checkouts/chan
ges.



There is limited versioning in the
multiple repositories.

Team members have overwritten others
changes
due
to the check
-
out/locking
limitations of GForge. This has resulted in
lost time and rework of changes.

The
CM

platform includes the basic
docume
nt management functionality that is
required:



Access control (change/read
-
only/no
access).



Version control (potentially including
splits and merges).



Full lock
-
out on check
-
out (users cannot
change a document without checking it
out).

9

Publishing is a ma
nual task.



The task of publishing artifacts to the
right repositories in the right format is
time
-
consuming.

DSLs and team members are spending too
much time converting artifacts to PDF or
HTML and posting the artifacts to the right
places. This is a manu
al process and
prone to errors/omissions.

The
CM platform can provide publishing
functionality to automatically convert a
document from one format to another (e.g.
Word to PDF) and publish the document to
the correct location.
CM

can publish to web
sites,

WIKIs, or other repositories.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
7

10

No facility for reuse
.

It is difficult to reuse model content from
EA or RMIM Designer.
DSLs and team
members are spending too much time
copying and pasting common content, and
then repeating the effort when changes are
published
.

DITA is designed to support component
-
based authoring and reuse. Content can be
extracted from modeling tools as UML and
the UML transformed to DITA.
The CM
platforms can also support component
-
based
authoring with XML to support a reuse
appro
ach
.

With built in support for DITA, a
good CM can provide functionality for end
-
to
-
end publishing of content. This includes:



Collaborative Authoring



Collaborative Review



Automated publishing of content based
on status trigger or request

Other issues

O
ther initiatives at NCI may make the repository redundant.

The Semantic Infrastructure (SI) project at NCI has included the development of a model
repository in its scope. However, the functional requirements of that repository will be broader
than the ne
eds of DITA content management for caCIS. While IM can select a tool to cover all
DITA publishing requirements and which could integrate into a broader SI strategy, we have also
considered that the tools recommended by IM here could be made redundant by t
he SI project in
2 or 3 years. Therefore, we have focused on tools that are functionally complete, quick to
implement, and cost competitive.


3.

Tool
ing and Requirements

IM and NCI are pursuing a DITA
-
based strategy for the support of artifact creation by th
e
caCIS team. This will require new tools to support the processes of authoring in DITA.

The high
-
level characteristics/requirements of the system are as follows:

3.1.1.1

Key Functional Requirements

The key functional requirements for the tools are described be
low. These requirements
were used to

create a short list of tools
for IM to concentrate there evaluations on.



Core Functionality



A secure, centralized content management repository for artifact
content.




A

DITA
-
based content architecture, capable of si
multaneously
managing
topic
-
based

and non
-
xml content
, including images and
PDF
.




Integrated editorial and production workflow management.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
8




A

DITA
-
aware, validating, near
-
WYSIWYG (What You See Is What
You Get) editor that is integrated with both the cont
ent
management repository and the workflow system.




Flexible workflow design and management tools.




Integrated tools to automatically
publish

source content to PDF
and/or HTML/WIKI output.




Integrated tools to assist in automatically converting well
-
str
uctured source content (e.g., Microsoft Word files using
templates and special styles) to XML.




Automatic synchronization of
content for both
online and off
-
line
editing
.



User Interfaces



Web
-
based portal to be used by team members for creating
artifac
ts, on
-
line review and annotations, approvals, and
schedule/status checking.




Web
-
based portal to be used by caCIS management for real
-
time
schedule/status checking.

Administration and
Management



Services used to administer and manage the solution functi
onality
(e.g. managing users and groups, maintaining security
permissions, defining and modifying workflows, etc.).



Automated tools for document tracking, including workflow
management.


3.1.1.2

Key Business Requirements

Reliability



System performs without errors

or data
corruption



P
rovider organization provide
s

rapid, reliable bug
fixes
.

Scalability



System
support
s

hundreds of users as
consistently as it does a few users, without
extensive customizations, disruptions, or
expensive infrastructural additions
.

Per
formance



System is
responsive to its users
.



System
deliver
s

outputs at least an order of
magnitude faster than
can
be delivered manua
lly.



System
offer
s

significantly faster performance
than similar
systems.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
9

Rapid implementation and customization



System
an
d/or the provider organization
enables

rapid, reliable implementation and customization
.


Price



System’s whole cost is less than the whole cost
of other systems delivering similar reliability,
scalability, performance, and speed of
implementation/customiz
ation.

3.2.

Authoring
Tools

One of the clear advantages of adopting DITA
(
or XML
)

as a publishing solution is that
you are not restricted to using a single editor. Logistically, having a single editing tool
can simplify support. However, in a properly design
ed DITA implementation, users can
access the same content using different editors seamlessly and without any sort of data
loss. This is extremely important as it provides an opportunity to provide more
appropriate tools for different types of users. For
example, you can provide a browser
-
based tool to casual users and a more complex tool to daily/power users.

3.2.1.1

Key Requirements


Criteria

Definition

User friendly, author
-
intuitive graphical user
interface (GUI)

Does the system have a GUI that is designed fo
r use by
writers/authors and which facilitates efficiency of their tasks?

Can the tool provide a “MS Word
-
like” interface to users?

Web interface

Does the authoring tool include a web
-
based interface?

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
10

Good/powerful text
handling capabilities

Does the au
thoring tool support the following:



spell check/thesaurus?



search and replace?



hypertext links?



bullets?



numbered lists?



tables?



footnotes?



scientific equations/notation?



global search and replace
?



document preparation and creation capabilities
?



auto creat
ion of headers/footers
?



auto generation of tables of contents
?



auto generation of index
?

Graphics support

Are images linked or embedded? (static and dynamic? with user
managed status)

Does the authoring tool include a preview mode?

How are images linked i
n? Drag and drop?

Can the images be manipulated for size/position/resolution in the
authoring tool?

Can callouts be added? Can they exist as a layer for translation and
multi
-
product labeling purposes?

Enforce structure/Full
rules checking

Does the author
ing tool enforce structure as defined in a DTD or
schema?

Does the tool indicate what tags are valid at the current position of
the cursor?

Does the authoring tool allow the author to make tagging errors?

DTD
/Schema

Support

Does the tool support both DTDs

and XSD schemas?

Customized DTDs

Does the authoring tool support the use of customized DTDs?

Easy tag entry

How do users enter XML tags?



Users pick tags from a list?



Users pick tags from a dropdown menu?



Other mechanism?

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
11

Easy metadata
(attributes) entr
y

How do users enter attributes:



Users pick predefined metadata (attribute) values from a pick

list?



Users are prompted for required metadata?



Other?

Tables

Describe the table support for the authoring tool:



Wizard driven?



Embedded support (in the tool)?

Can tables be generated from links to external data sources (CSV
files, XML tagged data, ASCII files, etc.)
?

Indicate changes to
users

Can the authoring system track changes in a document?

With change bars?

With color?

Can change indications be turned on
and off by the author?

Can the system produce change reports?

Does the authoring tool support change management like change
reports, change bars, version comparisons?

Can change bars be turned on and off by the user?

Can change bars automatically turn off
after a period of time has
passed?

Link within documents

Does the authoring tool support linking within elements/documents?

Drag and drop?

DITA Conrefs

Does the tools support DITA Conrefs?



Via drag
-
and
-
drop



To elements embedded in topics?

Links to exter
nal
documents

Does the tool provide an easy mechanism for creating links to
external documents?

Complexity filter

Can the interface be customized to

simplify the interface for end
users? I.e.
,
present

only the functions that the authors need to use?
Is i
t configurable for groups? By profile/user login?

Interfaces to CMS

Which CMS system does the tool interface to?

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
12

Conditional text

Does the tool provide specific support for conditional text?



Applying conditions



Publishing selected conditions

Price

Is th
e price appropriate to the tool? Competitive in the market?


Note: Prices for the tools are listed in Appendix A: Pricing


caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
13


3.3.

Content Management Tools

Initially, through pilot stages and early DITA implementation, IM expects that DITA
content will be st
ored in Subversion. However, as the number of users contributing
content and the volume of content (number of topics) grows, a CM will be required.

Subversion is acceptable for low volume, providing the necessary check
-
in/out,
versioning, etc., but does
not provide the same document development environment as
a CM. This is another parallel between topic
-
based authoring and source code
development. You can edit source code files directly with text editors, but it is frequently
more efficient to work in a

development environment that provides additional
functionality like syntax checkers, debuggers, etc.

3.3.1.1

Key Requirements

Criteria

Definition

Repository

What content formats does the CMS support, and what level of
granularity does it support them (e.g., file
, section, paragraph)?

What type of database does the content management software use?

Can the CMS accommodate the demands of enterprise
implementations (e.g. the number of users and the volume of
documents)?

Database setup and
maintenance

How much effor
t is required to set up and maintain the database?

Version control

Is every element versioned individually?

What types of versioning are provided?

Are changes stored as complete new versions of an element or does
it store the deltas (changes only) from

the current/original version?

Access control

What security features are provided to protect sensitive documents
from unauthorized access and modification?

What levels of security are provided?

At what level of granularity can content be secured?

Is th
e level of security of an element maintained wherever it is
reused?

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
14

XML and Non
-
XML
Data

Does the system manage both XML and non
-
XML (BLOB)
data?

Will it version BLOBs?

Can you assign metadata to BLOBs?

User interface

usability

H
ow easy is the tool to le
arn and use?

What are its limitations?

Can the interface be customized?

Is there an “offline” mode?

Check in/Check out

How easy is it to check out/check in content? Is content then locked
so other authors cannot also check it out and change it?

Can the s
ystem administrator check in content that is checked out by
someone else (useful, for example, if an author is sick)?

Metatags creation

Can metadata be applied in the authoring tool? Is metadata applied
as content is checked in? How simple is it for autho
rs to select and
apply metadata?

Can sub
-
elements of a container element automatically inherit the
metadata of the container element?

Can metadata be attached to reviewer comments?

What types of metadata can be automatically applied?

How easy is it to cr
eate a new metatag?

Status of each
component/element

Can the system indicate whether a component has been checked out
or is shared?

Where used

Does the system generate reports or displays indicating where an
element is being reused?

Reuse

Does the syst
em support complex reuse of small or large chunks of
content.

Segmentation/

Bursting

Does the CMS support segmentation or bursting? (Bursting is the
ability of the system to take a large chunk of content at check
-
in and
“burst” it into separate managed ch
unks.)

Can you define the level of granularity? Can you define multiple
levels of granularity depending on the type of content? Can you
change the level of granularity at a later date?

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
15

Reviews

Does the system support the content review process directly?

D
oes the system enable reviewers to:



Compare the current version of content to the previous version of
the content and see where and what changes have been made



View comments associated with previous versions of the content
to identify where changes have co
me from



View a history of all comments and changes to the element



Add metadata to reviewer comments to identify what type of
comment it is (e.g., “this content must be included exactly as
written”)



Capture and view authors’ reasons for not including commen
ts.

Search and retrieval

What type of search engine is available? Can you add your own?

What types of searching are supported (
B
oolean, natural language,
index, keyword, structural, metadata)?

Can search criteria be restricted based on user security prof
iles?

Link control

Does the system provide automatic link checking?

Does it automatically detect changed/ moved/ broken links and
correct problems?

Can it maintain/hide links when not relevant in dynamic documents?

Reporting

What are the reporting featu
res? Can the user generate:



status reports (of document elements)?



relationship reports (parent/child)?



use reports (documents used in)?



a list of changed modules for reviews?

Integrated workflow

Is workflow integrated into the content management system,
or is a
separate workflow tool required?

Is it configurable on the fly or must it be predetermined
?

Is the actual workflow audit trailed?

Can users share a common inbox so that you route work to a
department or team as opposed to individuals?

Implementati
on time

What is the typical analysis, development, and implementation time?

Publishing

Does the system provide a publishing interface that supports the
DITA Open Toolkit?

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
16

Support/community

Does the system have an effective support organization (in the ca
se
of commercial tools) or an active developer community (in the case
of open source tools)?

DITA Support

Does that system support DITA as
-
is or require customizations?

Price

Is the price appropriate to the tool? Competitive in the market?


3.4.

Review To
ols

The review process in the document lifecycle is frequently poorly designed. Many
companies have settled for the typical sequential style review of passing MS Word
documents around from person to person. Others offer a document to a group of
reviews s
imultaneously and then manually collate and disposition the comments.

The market is slowly delivering collaborative review tools that allow reviews to add
comments and markup text in a collaborative, simultaneous, rather than sequential
environment. The
se systems help speed up the review process while eliminating the
manual comment tracking/disposition tasks of formal reviews.

3.4.1.1

Key Requirements

The key requirements for the review system are as follows:

Collaboration

Does the system provide collaborative r
eview of a single
-
instance?


Change tracking

Does the system have change
-
tracking and red
-
lining (with the option
of restricting by user)

Does the system have commenting

Does the system store a record of all markup

Does the system have the ability to reco
rd disposition of changes


Repository

Does the review system integrate with a CMS or have its own
repository.

Price

Does the review functionality incur additional cost?


caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
17

4.

Tool Candidates

This section lists the tools that IM evaluated formally and provid
es a summary of their
strengths and weaknesses.

Note that this list does not include all tools in each category.
As an initial activity in this evaluation, IM created a short list of potential tools from all of
the tools that are available.

4.1.

Authoring To
ol Candidates Overview

Authoring Tool Candidates Overview



oXygen XML Author



expeDITA



JustSystems XMetaL



easyDITA



Xopus


4.1.1

oXygen XML
Author

Author is a version of the oXygen XML Editor (and XML IDE) that has been specifically
focused on the needs of authors.

4.1.1.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Relatively inexpensive



Available as both standalone, as an
Eclipse plug
-
in, and as a plug
-
in for
Internet Explorer
/Firefox



Integrates with remote servers via
WebDAV



Solid DITA support



Good conditional text di
splay



Reliable



Runs on Windows/MacOS/Linux



Browser

plug
-
in does not yet work on
Macintosh OS




caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
18


4.1.2

expeDITA

A WIKI
-
like, DITA
-
based authoring environment.

4.1.2.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Open Source (free)



Specifically designed to provide an
a
uthoring portal for
community/collaborative authoring



Full support for all aspects of DITA



Simple and clean interface



Effectively mirror
s

WIKI authoring



Approaching first Beta release. Would
require development support



No support organization



Limited tex
t handling capabilities without
using a commercial plug
-
in



No redlining or track changes



No support for conditional text



Inefficient DITA map editor

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
19


4.1.3

JustSystems XMetaL

XMetaL is the oldest and most mature

XML editor.

4.1.3.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

W
eaknesses



Very mature, stable product



Market leader



Full support for all aspects of DITA



Good conditional text display






Comparatively expensive



Has a plug
-
in version, but is IE only



Can be difficult to customize to hide
complexity



Does not run under MacOS
/Linux

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
20


4.1.4

easyDITA

easyDITA is a new content management system from Jorsek LLC.
In addition to the
usual sort of content management functionality, it includes a simple and easy
-
to
-
use
built
-
in XML editor.


4.1.4.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Built in editor is easy to use



Easy to creat
e

new topics



Good source view of the content, displays
in XML format



Map tool is not very robust but functional



Easy access to invite others to collaborate



T
he tool is still
pre
-
Beta and

not ready for a
productio
n environment.



Does not provide user
-
customizable
workflow management.



High level of risk associated with provider,
due to its small size and lack of market
support.


caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
21


4.1.5

Xopus

Xopus is
a browser
-
based, customizable editor for DITA and other XML documents
.


4.1.5.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Available as a browser plug
-
in



Attractive, easy user interface




No reviewing capabilities



Does not display referenced content
correctly



No online help




caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
22

4.2.

CMS

Candidates

Overview

While there are many
CMS

a
vailable, IM has identified the following tools as possible
candidates for this project
:



Alfresco with Componize



DocZone



easyDITA



Vasont



4.2.1

Alfresco with Componize

Alfresco is an open
-
source ECM that is also available as a commercial (by subscription) syste
m.
By itself it provides no direct DITA support. The Componize plug
-
in provides the DITA support

4.2.1.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Available as SAAS/Cloud application



Comparatively less expensive



Reliable



Scalable



Rapid implementation and cu
stomization



Supports multiple DITA editors



Not the most efficient interface



DITA functionality is relatively limited
compared to some other tools.

How so?



Componize product is not tested as
thoroughly with the free version of Alfresco
as with the commercia
l version.



Alfresco is free; Componize is not

4.2.2

DocZone

DocZone was the first commercial SaaS DITA CMS on the market. It provides complete end
-
to
-
end support for document publishing. (Note: It is also built on top of Alfresco).

4.2.2.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

S
trengths

Weaknesses



Available as a SaaS.



Solid and complete DITA support.



Uses TopLeaf as a publishing engine, not
the DITA OT.



Uses a customized version of DITA to
support conrefs, limiting portability



Interface is not the most efficient.



Comparatively

expensive for

what it offers

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
23

4.2.3

easyDITA

easyDITA is a new content management system from Jorsek LLC. As an application,
easyDITA holds great promise. From a user’s perspective, both the content
management functionality and the built
-
in DITA editor are ver
y easy to use. In terms of
the functionality promised, easyDITA
checks

all the boxes, including a good
collaborative review tool. However, the tools is still pre
-
Beta and not ready for a
production environment.

4.2.3.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknes
ses



Built in editor is easy to use



Easy to creat
e

new topics



Good source view of the content, displays
in XML format



Map tool is not very robust but functional



Easy access to invite others to collaborate



T
he tool is still
pre
-
Beta and not ready for
a pro
duction environment.



Does not provide user
-
customizable
workflow management.



High level of risk associated with provider,
due to its small size and lack of market
support.



Currently limited to eXist XML database.

4.2.4

Vasont

One of the oldest and most mature C
MS products for DITA support.

4.2.4.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Available as a SaaS or installed.



Has just provided a new browser
-
based
editing/management interface aimed at
authors.



Very mature functionality.



Old technology



More complex int
erface/learning curve


4.3.

Collaborative Review
Candidates

Good XML/DITA
-
based review tools are limited. Most are integrated with CMS. There
are some additional options.

IM evaluated the following tools:



DITA Content Collaboration

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
24



XMetaL Review



Vasont Revi
ewer



oXygen Author v12



easyDITA



4.3.1

expe
DITA

A WIKI
-
like, DITA
-
based authoring environment.

4.3.1.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Open Source (free)



Specifically designed to provide an
authoring portal for
community/collaborative authoring




Approa
ching first Beta release.



Limited text handling capabilities without
using a commercial plug
-
in.



No redlining, track changes, comments
(would have to build in or use commercial
tool)



No disposition comments


4.3.2

XMetaL Review
er

An excellent XML
-
Based coll
aborative review tool.

4.3.2.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Provides real
-
time collaborative review of
documents.



Operates as a standalone server or
integrated with a CMS



Full support for all aspects of review:
redlining, change tracking, comm
ents,
disposition comments



Expensive as a standalone product



Does not run on a Macintosh



Web plug
-
in is Internet Explorer only.

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
25

4.3.3

Vasont Reviewer

Embedded review module in the Vasont CMS. Supports collaborative review.

4.3.3.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

We
aknesses



Good support for collaborative review




Not available as a standalone tool; you
must purchase Vasont


4.3.4

oXygen Author v12

DITA/XML authoring tool that includes collaborative review features

4.3.4.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Good suppor
t for collaborative review



No additional cost.




Not available as a standalone tool;
included with oXygen Author


4.3.5

easyDITA

DITA/XML CMS/Authoring tool that includes collaborative review features

4.3.5.1

Strengths

and Weaknesses

Strengths

Weaknesses



Good support f
or collaborative review



caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
26


5.

Tool Ranking

This section provides ranking for the tools based on the criteria captured in Section 3.
Each tool is given a numerical
score, from 0 to 5, for each functional criterion, based on
the following:


Score

Description

5

Fully meets criteria with out of the box functionality.

4

Partial fit with criteria.

3

Meets criteria with customization of existing functionality. Or, partial fit
with criteria.

2

Minimal fit with criteria.

1

Needs customization to add functionali
ty.

0

Does not meet criteria.


5.1.

Authoring Tools

Scores for the authoring tools are provided below:

5.1.1.1

Functionality Scores

Criteria

oXygen
XML
Author

expeDITA

Just
-
Systems
XMetaL

easyDITA

Xopus

User friendly, author
-
intuitive
graphical user interface
(GUI)

3

4

3

5

4

Web interface

4

4

0

5

4

Good/powerful text handling
capabilities

5

2

5

2

4

Graphics support

5

3

5

4

5

Enforce structure/Full rules
checking

5

2

5

3

5

DTD/Schema Support

5

0

3

4

4

Customized DTDs

5

2

5

0

0

Easy tag entry

5

3

5

4

4

Easy met
adata (attributes)
entry

5

3

4

5

4

Tables

5

3

5

4

3

Indicate changes to users

5

0

5

5

1

Link within documents

5

3

5

5

5

DITA Conrefs

4

0

4

5

4

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
27

Link to external documents

4

4

4

4

4

Complexity filter

5

3

4

1

4

Interfaces to CMS

5

n/a

4

3

5

Conditiona
l Text

5

1

5

1

0







Score

80

37

71

60

60

5.1.1.2

Business Requirements Scores

Criteria

oXygen
XML
Author

expeDITA

Just
-
Systems
XMetaL

easyDITA

Xopus

Reliability

5

1

5

1

4

Scalability

5

?

5

?

4

Performance

5

?

5

3

3

Rapid implementation and
customization

5

3

3

3

4

Price

4

5

3

?

3







Score

24

9

21

7

18


5.2.

Content Management Tools

Scores for the CMS tools are provided below:

5.2.1.1

Functionality Scores

Criteria

Alfresco
with
Componize

DocZone

easyDITA

Vasont

Repository

varied

varied

eXist

Oracle

Database set
up and
maintenance

4

5

5

1

Version control

4

4

2

5

Access control

4

4

5

4

XML and Non
-
XML Data

5

4

5

5

User interface usability

4

2

5

2

Check in/Check out

4

4

4

4

Metatags creation

4

2

5

2

Status of each
component/element

4

4

4

4

Where used

4

4

3

5

Reuse

4

3

5

4

Segmentation/Bursting

4

4

5

4

Reviews

1

4

5

4

Search and retrieval

3

4

5

5

Link control

5

4

3

5

Reporting

1

3

3

3

Integrated workflow

4

3

1

4

Implementation time

4

4

2

2

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
28

Publishing

5

3

0

3

Support/community

4

3

2

3

DITA Support

5

3

3

4

Price

5

3

3

2






Score

82

74

75

75

5.2.1.2

Business Requirements Scores

Criteria

Alfresco
with
Componize

DocZone

easyDITA

Vasont

Reliability

5

3

1

3

Scalability

5

3

?

4

Performance

5

3

3

3

Rapid implementation and
customization

5

4

3

2

Price

5

3

3

2






Score

25

16

10

14



5.3.

Review Tools

Scores for the review tools are provided below:

5.3.1.1

Functionality Scores

Criteria

easyDITA

oXygen
Author
v12

Vasont
Reviewer

XMetaL
Review

Collaboration

5

5

1

3

Change tracking

0

4

5

4

Repository

3

5

4

4






Sc
ore

13

14

14

12


5.3.1.2

Business Requirements Scores

Criteria

Alfresco
with
Componize

oXygen
Author
v12

Vasont
Reviewer

XMetaL
Review

Reliability

1

3

4

3

Scalability

?

3

3

3

Performance

3

3

3

3

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
29

Rapid
implementation
and
customization

3

4

2

2

Price

3

3

1

1






Score

10

16

13

12



6.

Recommendations

IM recommends the following DITA tools for the caCIS project
.

6.1.

Authoring Tools

The tools are ranked as follows:

1.

oXygen XML Author


Not the most friendly

of the XML editors
, but

it is
customizable
.
It is r
eliable

a
nd will run on Windows, Linux, and Macintosh
platforms
.
It is e
conomical
, it has a c
omprehensive range of features
, and also
has a browser plug
-
in that is not browser
-
dependant.
.

2.

easyDITA


easyDITA has tremendous potential, but is not
production ready.

We would have to put too much effort into supporting this tool to make it usable.
Among the issues:

user setup

is difficult
and it
does not currently have a
publishing module, making it difficult to create output from DITA files.

3.

Xopus

is a popular

4.

J
ustSystems

X
m
etaL

--

XmetaL is as functionally solid as any tool
, but has one
of the highest price tags. It is not “Macintosh
-
friendly.”

5.

expeDITA


expeDITA, like easyDITA, has a lot of potential, but is not
production
ready.

Score

oXygen
XML
Author

expe
DITA

JustSystems
XMetaL

easyDITA

Xopus

Business Requirements

80

37

71

60

60

Functional Requirements

24

9

21

7

18







Total Score

104

46

92

67

78


caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
30


6.2.

Content Management Tools

The tools are ranked as follows:

1.

Alfresco with Componize



delivers all it s
ays it can do.

2.

DocZone



Expensive in both short and long term. DITA support is customized
in it’s most popular version.

3.

easyDITA



Publishing not there. Workflow customization not there

4.

Vasont
-

Long time to implement.

Scores

Alfresco
with
Componize

DocZone

easyDITA

Vasont

Functionality Requirements

82

74

75

75

Business Requirements

25

16

10

14






Total Score

107

90

85

89


6.3.

Review Tools

IM
recommends

that
reviews be done with oXygen and Alfresco. The combination is not
as user
-
friendly as any o
f the other tools, but will be serviceable for internal reviews. IM
further recommends that expeDITA be tracked and re
-
evaluated as a potential
collaborative
-
review mechanism for external reviews.

1.

oXygen Author v12

--


N
ot
really collaborative, but cle
an and reliable
.

2.

expeDITA


Cheap, but limited in change tracking


would have to be built in.

3.

easyDITA

--

A

fresh thinking on reviewing. Collaborative reviewing very clean
and easy to use.

4.

Vasont Reviewer


Functionally acceptable, but requires Vasont,
which is not the
recommended CMS.


5.

XMetaL Reviewer
Functionally very complete, but also very expensive
.


Scores

easyDITA

oXygen
Author
v12

Vasont
Reviewer

XMetaL
Review

Functionality Requirements

13

14

14

12

Business Requirements

10

16

13

12






Total

Score

24

30

27

24

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
31


7.

Next steps: P
urchase and P
ilot

IM recommends an initial purchase of licenses to cover the DITA pilot project only,
and in the following order:

1.

12 Licenses of oXygen XML Author

Pro
.


These should be purchased immediately. This will
provide time to train the
authors on using the tool in time to create DITA
-
based content for R4.

2.

Limited license of Componize (Alfresco is open source) to support the pilot.


Authors will begin by creating DITA content and initially storing it in .svn.
IM
will move their content into Alfresco/Componize when it is available.

Pilot Costs:


Per User

Users

Totals


License

Support


License

Support

oXygen XML Author

$241

Included

12

$2,892

0

Alfresco

0

$0


$0

0

Alfresco with Componize

$2,600

$520

15

$39,00
0


$ 7,800















Totals


$41,892

$7,800

These are “catalog” prices. We are certain that more favorable pricing could be
obtained through negotation.

8.

Appendix A: Pricing



License

Support

Authoring



oXygen XML Author

$241/user includes

SMP

Included

expeDITA

Open Source


JustSystems XMetaL

$1195/user

Determined based on # of users

easyDITA

Still determining pricing for Beta
version


Xopus

$234/named user

20% of licence cost







CMS



Alfresco with Componize

Alfresco: Open Sourc
e/
Componize $2600/named user
(subscrition also available)

520/user

DocZone

$395/mth/concurrent user

Included

caBIG Clinical Information Suite

DITA Tools Recommendation

Draft


Page
32

easyDITA

Still determining pricing for Beta
version


Vasont

$125,000 average install
1

Negotiated as part of professional
services