Usega of SPS versus WSS - philosophy

Hi,
Could someone put more light on the purpose and limitations of SPS.
I'm trying to build community portal on SPS. There is a number of
different documents and buletins categorized by subject. My idea was to
put everything on SPS in libraries in different areas. WSS sites would
be just for sub-communities to narrrow down the audience for some
contents and tasks.
But after some test I a little bit dizzy. Perheps I doesn't make sens
to keep libraries in Portal?

In that way we come to idea of SPS with WSS. I know that MS sees SPS as
glue...consolidation and some additional functionality like better
search etc.
But does that mean that SPS is just for keeping static contents and
links to WSS contantents?

hmmm

Bob
Sun Apr 09 01:07:35 CDT 2006


Bill English wrote a good article covering this topic; see:
http://mindsharpblogs.com/bill/archive/2006/03/20/1033.aspx

In general, there is no "defined" set of rules that you must adhere to with
SPS and WSS. However, there are "best practices"! Any implementation I
have been involved in, I make the following general recommendations:

Use SPS for published content and WSS Sites for collaboration; period. It
is very common to use Document Libraries on your Portal, but I would recommend
using these for published content only. Use WSS for "work in progress" then
publish the information up to the Portal (if necessary).

------------------------
Bob Mixon
Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server MVP
(Blog) http://bobmixon.xwiki.com
------------------------

> Hi,
> Could someone put more light on the purpose and limitations of SPS.
> I'm trying to build community portal on SPS. There is a number of
> different documents and buletins categorized by subject. My idea was
> to
> put everything on SPS in libraries in different areas. WSS sites would
> be just for sub-communities to narrrow down the audience for some
> contents and tasks.
> But after some test I a little bit dizzy. Perheps I doesn't make sens
> to keep libraries in Portal?
> In that way we come to idea of SPS with WSS. I know that MS sees SPS
> as
> glue...consolidation and some additional functionality like better
> search etc.
> But does that mean that SPS is just for keeping static contents and
> links to WSS contantents?
> hmmm
>

Engelbert
Sun Apr 09 02:24:55 CDT 2006

I'm not sure that everyone will understand the text the way you want it to
be understood. In particular I think there might be a problem splitting off
the concept of WSS sites in an SPS installation and WSS sites in a
standalone WSS installation.

I take your text to mean that you put work in progress in WSS sites in
standalone WSS installations and once these are completed you would move the
completed documents to WSS sites in SPS 2003 installations.

But I can see that there could be another meaning (or maybe several) - i.e.
that you could be talking about WSS sites *in an SPS installation* for your
work in progress and the SPS part of an SPS installation for your published
content.

Which of these two alternatives do you mean ?

I'll admit that my bias if only using SPS 2003 would be to use the WSS sites
for *all* content and then SPS part only for consolidation (Audiences etc.).

Would this then be a third alternative to the above two ?

Engelbert

"Bob Mixon" <bob.mixon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c6fb7ce8397458c829785b8657e0@msnews.microsoft.com...
>
> Bill English wrote a good article covering this topic; see:
> http://mindsharpblogs.com/bill/archive/2006/03/20/1033.aspx
>
> In general, there is no "defined" set of rules that you must adhere to
> with SPS and WSS. However, there are "best practices"! Any
> implementation I have been involved in, I make the following general
> recommendations:
>
> Use SPS for published content and WSS Sites for collaboration; period. It
> is very common to use Document Libraries on your Portal, but I would
> recommend using these for published content only. Use WSS for "work in
> progress" then publish the information up to the Portal (if necessary).
>
> ------------------------
> Bob Mixon
> Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server MVP
> (Blog) http://bobmixon.xwiki.com
> ------------------------
>
>> Hi,
>> Could someone put more light on the purpose and limitations of SPS.
>> I'm trying to build community portal on SPS. There is a number of
>> different documents and buletins categorized by subject. My idea was
>> to
>> put everything on SPS in libraries in different areas. WSS sites would
>> be just for sub-communities to narrrow down the audience for some
>> contents and tasks.
>> But after some test I a little bit dizzy. Perheps I doesn't make sens
>> to keep libraries in Portal?
>> In that way we come to idea of SPS with WSS. I know that MS sees SPS
>> as
>> glue...consolidation and some additional functionality like better
>> search etc.
>> But does that mean that SPS is just for keeping static contents and
>> links to WSS contantents?
>> hmmm
>>
>
>

SmartbizAustralia
Sun Apr 09 06:14:34 CDT 2006

pksa@poczta.fm wrote:
> Hi,
> Could someone put more light on the purpose and limitations of SPS.
> I'm trying to build community portal on SPS. There is a number of
> different documents and buletins categorized by subject. My idea was to
> put everything on SPS in libraries in different areas.

In WSS Libraries are the same as in SPS

WSS sites would be just for sub-communities to narrrow down the
audience for some
contents and tasks.

Why wouldn't you have different sites for the different audiences?
It is easier to do permissions by site rather than by library!

> But after some test I a little bit dizzy. Perheps I doesn't make sense to keep libraries in Portal?
>
> In that way we come to idea of SPS with WSS. I know that MS sees SPS as
> glue...consolidation and some additional functionality like better search etc.

The better search isn't as intuitive as it doesn't have a simple
boolean search! The new v3 coming out next year is looking like it will
answer some of the search problems!
The only good thing about SPS search is cross site searching. But there
is also a web part out there that can achieve the same thing on WSS!
Some will say that using the meta tags in advanced searches is okay,
but the average user used to Googling will find that annoying.

The way one can set up topics and areas is great but it is best to
start simply with WSS and then jump to SPS which is primary a wrapper
around WSS extending the functionality with it's topic hierarchy,
advanced meta tag searching and being able to hook into file shares.

> But does that mean that SPS is just for keeping static contents and
> links to WSS contantents?

The "taxomony" you can create in SPS is great once you figure out how
to set this up, but how complex is what you are trying to acheive?

Each business problem in managing documents and content requires
different tools and techniques...
Let us know more about what you want to do and the answers you want can
be more specific.

Tom Bizannes
SharePoint Consultant

pksa
Sun Apr 09 10:49:55 CDT 2006

My case looks like this:
We have offices in many locations. The users at those locations have to
read frequently some documents of different kind (instructions,
conversion tables etc grouped by domain) and upload some data (separate
files or huge packages of files). The rest is typical funtionality
(forum, annoucements, contacts, FAQ, static descriptions and graphics).
There are some specific groups that could be separated from the others
on their sites becouse the contents is very limited to that group
(documens, files, discussions, contacts). These specific groups are
also focused on producing the documents and data files exposed later
for all users.
So I basicaly thought that the majority of users should be given rights
to SPS with common libraries, forums, contacts. The content could be
divided into areas with specific lists and libraries. I hope that would
make the administration easier and the common look&feel. The special
groups would be given with dedicated sites.
The consequence of the approach means that along the time the content
stored in SPS would be huge, and the rile of WSS sites would be minor
(rather development or small groups of users).
Does that approache make sense?
Should I give more details??

Engelbert
Sun Apr 09 11:09:15 CDT 2006

Microsoft do this internally by having regional (6 in the world I think)
SharePoint Portal 2003 servers and with the local subsidiaries having their
own WSS servers. These are then consolidated on the regional SPS site.

This has been presented at several TechEds and I am almost 100% that there
is also a web cast on this that you can get on-line.

Engelbert
<pksa@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:1144597794.977652.141440@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> My case looks like this:
> We have offices in many locations. The users at those locations have to
> read frequently some documents of different kind (instructions,
> conversion tables etc grouped by domain) and upload some data (separate
> files or huge packages of files). The rest is typical funtionality
> (forum, annoucements, contacts, FAQ, static descriptions and graphics).
> There are some specific groups that could be separated from the others
> on their sites becouse the contents is very limited to that group
> (documens, files, discussions, contacts). These specific groups are
> also focused on producing the documents and data files exposed later
> for all users.
> So I basicaly thought that the majority of users should be given rights
> to SPS with common libraries, forums, contacts. The content could be
> divided into areas with specific lists and libraries. I hope that would
> make the administration easier and the common look&feel. The special
> groups would be given with dedicated sites.
> The consequence of the approach means that along the time the content
> stored in SPS would be huge, and the rile of WSS sites would be minor
> (rather development or small groups of users).
> Does that approache make sense?
> Should I give more details??
>

pksa
Sun Apr 09 12:23:27 CDT 2006

So you mean that they publish contents on WSS sites and user SPS for
consolidation?
I intended the other way - using SPS as a general content store and WSS
just for some selected groups of users.

The alternative approach would be to create a few WSS sites, each for
each product with related instructions and files, and SPS use for
integrating them.

What you think?

Engelbert
Sun Apr 09 13:44:18 CDT 2006

>So you mean that they publish contents on WSS sites and user SPS >for
>consolidation?

That's what they say they do, yes.

I had the impression that that was what you were saying - after all a local
subsidiary is a "selected group of users".

As for your alternative approach, I don't really get what's different there
so it's best I comment on it.

Engelbert


<pksa@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:1144603407.319293.96590@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> So you mean that they publish contents on WSS sites and user SPS for
> consolidation?
> I intended the other way - using SPS as a general content store and WSS
> just for some selected groups of users.
>
> The alternative approach would be to create a few WSS sites, each for
> each product with related instructions and files, and SPS use for
> integrating them.
>
> What you think?
>

Engelbert
Sun Apr 09 23:12:30 CDT 2006

> so it's best I comment on it.

should have been

> so it's best I don't comment on it.

Sorry for the confusion.

"Engelbert" <Engelbert@discussions.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ei$6dWAXGHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >So you mean that they publish contents on WSS sites and user SPS >for
> >consolidation?
>
> That's what they say they do, yes.
>
> I had the impression that that was what you were saying - after all a
> local subsidiary is a "selected group of users".
>
> As for your alternative approach, I don't really get what's different
> there so it's best I comment on it.
>
> Engelbert
>
>
> <pksa@poczta.fm> wrote in message
> news:1144603407.319293.96590@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> So you mean that they publish contents on WSS sites and user SPS for
>> consolidation?
>> I intended the other way - using SPS as a general content store and WSS
>> just for some selected groups of users.
>>
>> The alternative approach would be to create a few WSS sites, each for
>> each product with related instructions and files, and SPS use for
>> integrating them.
>>
>> What you think?
>>
>
>

Drew
Wed Apr 12 16:47:41 CDT 2006

My opinion is to use SPS has your aggregated view into your WSS sites. Use
WSS sites for everything else.


"SmartbizAustralia" <tom@smartbiz.com.au> wrote in message
news:1144581274.048764.57250@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> pksa@poczta.fm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Could someone put more light on the purpose and limitations of SPS.
>> I'm trying to build community portal on SPS. There is a number of
>> different documents and buletins categorized by subject. My idea was to
>> put everything on SPS in libraries in different areas.
>
> In WSS Libraries are the same as in SPS
>
> WSS sites would be just for sub-communities to narrrow down the
> audience for some
> contents and tasks.
>
> Why wouldn't you have different sites for the different audiences?
> It is easier to do permissions by site rather than by library!
>
>> But after some test I a little bit dizzy. Perheps I doesn't make sense to
>> keep libraries in Portal?
>>
>> In that way we come to idea of SPS with WSS. I know that MS sees SPS as
>> glue...consolidation and some additional functionality like better search
>> etc.
>
> The better search isn't as intuitive as it doesn't have a simple
> boolean search! The new v3 coming out next year is looking like it will
> answer some of the search problems!
> The only good thing about SPS search is cross site searching. But there
> is also a web part out there that can achieve the same thing on WSS!
> Some will say that using the meta tags in advanced searches is okay,
> but the average user used to Googling will find that annoying.
>
> The way one can set up topics and areas is great but it is best to
> start simply with WSS and then jump to SPS which is primary a wrapper
> around WSS extending the functionality with it's topic hierarchy,
> advanced meta tag searching and being able to hook into file shares.
>
>> But does that mean that SPS is just for keeping static contents and
>> links to WSS contantents?
>
> The "taxomony" you can create in SPS is great once you figure out how
> to set this up, but how complex is what you are trying to acheive?
>
> Each business problem in managing documents and content requires
> different tools and techniques...
> Let us know more about what you want to do and the answers you want can
> be more specific.
>
> Tom Bizannes
> SharePoint Consultant
>

Judy
Fri Apr 14 08:20:01 CDT 2006

Is there time to rethink your decision? Bill wrote a good article (for a
different reason) but might help you look at the portal and WSS in a
different way.

http://mindsharpblogs.com/bill/archive/2006/03/20/1033.aspx

I will be glad to talk offline to you about some design recommendations as
well.





"Drew" wrote:

> My opinion is to use SPS has your aggregated view into your WSS sites. Use
> WSS sites for everything else.
>
>
> "SmartbizAustralia" <tom@smartbiz.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1144581274.048764.57250@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > pksa@poczta.fm wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Could someone put more light on the purpose and limitations of SPS.
> >> I'm trying to build community portal on SPS. There is a number of
> >> different documents and buletins categorized by subject. My idea was to
> >> put everything on SPS in libraries in different areas.
> >
> > In WSS Libraries are the same as in SPS
> >
> > WSS sites would be just for sub-communities to narrrow down the
> > audience for some
> > contents and tasks.
> >
> > Why wouldn't you have different sites for the different audiences?
> > It is easier to do permissions by site rather than by library!
> >
> >> But after some test I a little bit dizzy. Perheps I doesn't make sense to
> >> keep libraries in Portal?
> >>
> >> In that way we come to idea of SPS with WSS. I know that MS sees SPS as
> >> glue...consolidation and some additional functionality like better search
> >> etc.
> >
> > The better search isn't as intuitive as it doesn't have a simple
> > boolean search! The new v3 coming out next year is looking like it will
> > answer some of the search problems!
> > The only good thing about SPS search is cross site searching. But there
> > is also a web part out there that can achieve the same thing on WSS!
> > Some will say that using the meta tags in advanced searches is okay,
> > but the average user used to Googling will find that annoying.
> >
> > The way one can set up topics and areas is great but it is best to
> > start simply with WSS and then jump to SPS which is primary a wrapper
> > around WSS extending the functionality with it's topic hierarchy,
> > advanced meta tag searching and being able to hook into file shares.
> >
> >> But does that mean that SPS is just for keeping static contents and
> >> links to WSS contantents?
> >
> > The "taxomony" you can create in SPS is great once you figure out how
> > to set this up, but how complex is what you are trying to acheive?
> >
> > Each business problem in managing documents and content requires
> > different tools and techniques...
> > Let us know more about what you want to do and the answers you want can
> > be more specific.
> >
> > Tom Bizannes
> > SharePoint Consultant
> >
>
>
>