Collaborate. Share. Publish. What difference does it make? Well, probably a lot. Some say that by definition, collaboration is something that is done amongst and between peers. Sharing presumes an initial "ownership" that gets expanded on a whim -- you or I or she shares, but we collaborate.
When we take this into the document management world, the difference in practical operation becomes much more relevant.
Sharing is one-way. I make my information (content, document, pictures, etc.) available for reading by a specific, known set of people. But at the end of the day it is my stuff and I don't want or expect anyone to mess around with it. Oh they can copy it and do what they want with their own instance -- but I am not asking for or expecting input or approval. Okay, go ahead and post some comments or loving notes of appreciation on it... But don't even try to make it better (thank you very much).
Collaboration is a two-way street. Or maybe more accurately, an open playing field. When we collaborate, we're all here to jointly make the best creation we can -- and each one of us gets to make changes and improvements. In that aspect, and on this project, we are peers -- or at least a bit more evenly matched. But the key thing here is that for collaboration to happen, all collaborators must have the ability and permission to make changes (or at least comments) that will influence the final deliverable. It's more than just a read-only experience.
So what about "publishing"? For me, its just like sharing... except that with publishing, the sharing is with an unknown set of people. If they can find it, they can read it. As the author, I may not even know you have it. What gets published is a finished and final work. But it does seem that publishing most often happens through well established locations or well-defined channels.
So wouldn't it be neat if a single tool could address all of those content management and control scenarios -- collaborate, share, and publish. That would be one useful tool!
Post new comment