<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by mike belgeri</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/3819</link>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:10:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by mike belgeri</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Struggling through questions and suggested answers seems to be a growing part of life on the web.  I found your article thought provoking.  I came to it through a link here: &lt;a href="http://www.namahn.com/resources/documents/note-CMap.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.namahn.com/resources/documents/note-CMap.pdf&lt;/a&gt;, which is an excellent paper on content management.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;My criticism also comes from reading the namahn article.  Mr Namahn points out that IT tends to speak IT and that content management is an IT term, so when one is writing about the subject of content management, one should not use the term.  the addage reads that one should never use the term you are defining in the definition.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/better-content#content_5837</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/better-content#content_5837</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:10:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>mike belgeri</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
