c
Fri Mar 18 12:23:01 CST 2005
Right you are Mike!
That was why I mentioned that a little flexibility on the user's side would
allow WSS to satisfy his needs.
I guess it just depends on how flexibile the requirements are.
Thanks
C
"Mike Walsh" wrote:
> I knew (not surprisingly as I added it only recently) about the Boolean
> Search on the WSS FAQ site but if you look carefully at it you'll see that
> it's only AND and OR not full Boolean.
>
> Also this questioner seems to be asking for more version control
> functionality than WSS offers.
>
> I also I thought mentioned the multiple choice field possibility.
>
> It's just that I think that the demands presented are in each area more than
> WSS offers. WSS offers something for each area mentioned just imo not enough
> for this questioner.
>
> Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland
>
> "Cornelius J. van Dyk" <c@dtdn.ANTISPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:0F877933-7B8B-41BA-AE98-48C725442B63@microsoft.com...
> > Martin,
> >
> > Allow me to contribute my two cents.
> > I believe with a little "tweaking" you can get WSS to do what you want.
> > According to your requirements you need:
> >
> > 1. Simple check in for new documents. WSS can do that. If you turn on
> > content approval, it even adds limited work flow to the mix.
> >
> > 2. Multiple category properties allowing one document to fall into
> > multiple
> > values for the same category field. This can be done by extending the
> > document library through the addition of more metadata fields. When you
> > are
> > specifying the field type, you would select a "Choice" type and then
> > select
> > the "Checkboxes" option which would enable multipe values for the given
> > field.
> >
> > 3. Version control. WSS does that though only in whole versions i.e. 1,
> > 2,
> > 3 etc. Sub versions such as 1.1, 1.2 etc. is not possible.
> >
> > 4. Powerful boolean search capability. I'm a little surprised at Mike's
> > answer as his own site (wss.collutions.com) has the solution for giving
> > WSS
> > boolean search ability located here:
> >
http://wss.collutions.com/Lists/FAQ/DispForm.aspx?ID=420
> >
> > Given these answers, with a little flexibility on your side, I feel WSS
> > can
> > meet your needs.
> >
> > Hope this is helpful.
> >
> > Thanks
> > C
> >
> >
> > "Mike Walsh" wrote:
> >
> >> Neither of the two products you mention has more than a nominal version
> >> control.
> >>
> >> Search functions in SPS 2003 are more powerful than in WSS.
> >>
> >> Multiple categories for each document: WSS has field types with multiple
> >> choice selections but filtering (and searching) on the values of multiple
> >> choice fields is limited.
> >>
> >> SPS 2003 allows you to assign things to Areas etc. as well as to document
> >> libraries which may add to your multiple category need but probably also
> >> doesn't go far enough.
> >>
> >> Given the above answers, I'd ask this in the newsgroup for SPS 2003 at
> >>
> >> microsoft.product.sharepoint.portalserver
> >>
> >> instead.
> >>
> >> Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland
> >> WSS FAQ
http://wss.collutions.com
> >> please reply to the newsgroup only
> >>
> >> "martin" <martin@proj.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:_jo_d.2179$WL6.1626@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I'm interested in using WSS or SPS for document management, where the
> >> > documents are the usual PDF's, MSWord documents, Lotus Notes databases,
> >> > e-mails, web pages etc. held by different departments across the
> >> > Company.
> >> >
> >> > This is formal storage of documents and a 'google' type document search
> >> > is
> >> > not appropriate. We need the following:
> >> >
> >> > - simple check-in facility for new documents.
> >> > - the ability to assign documents to a category tree, with multiple
> >> > categories for each document (e.g. more than one author or subject).
> >> > - version control.
> >> > - a powerful boolean search capability.
> >> >
> >> > Without actually getting my hands on the software, it's difficult to
> >> > see
> >> > whether or not this functionality is available and whether WSS or SPS
> >> > are
> >> > appropriate.
> >> >
> >> > I really envisaged a relational database behind the scenes to handle
> >> > the
> >> > one-to-many relationships in the category tree. Is this feasible?
> >> >
> >> > Any pointers, links etc would be appreciated.
> >> >
> >> > Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>