Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 08:22:28 -0800
At 10:12 AM 11/6/98 +0200, Fernando Cabral wrote:
>Nevertheless, you've forgotten a very
>important name: Dataware Technologies (http://www.dataware.com).
>Dataware grew from 0 to several million dollars in a few years
>selling text-retrieval systems for CDs (about $40MB/year). Then
>it bought BRS, with more than 2,000 data centers.
Well, I just went and checked their financials, and while they
actually showed a bit of profit I observe that their revenue,
for this quarter against the same quarter last year, is declining
(down from $5.4m to $4.8m) and the 3/4 results are down from $14.6m
to $14.2m. This is the high-growth Internet/Software field? I repeat
my claim that this is not a good busines to be in.
>About two years ago Dataware launched EPMS, now renamed
>Dataware II Publisher. This is a version of BRS entirely based
>on SGML (it reads from about 300 different formats, converts
>and stores as an SGML file, and allows you to do text retrieval
>both in the traditional way as well as in a more SGML-like way.
>Of course, it can read and index directly SGML, XML and HTML.
Can anyone else substantiate this? Last time I looked at BRS/search,
it was a very traditional atomic-document thing; it had some fielded
search, but it could only *find* documents. Obviously for XML you
need to find elements. It would be great if BRS was really
>Talking about money, it is quite clear that IBM made a lotof money selling
>STAIRS. Now it is musty but for more
>than 20 years it reigned undisputed undisputed in the mainframe
Here we agree. IBM made some serious money with STAIRS (I suspect
mostly by selling mainframes to run it on).
>So, I think the right conclusion is that in the low-end line of products
>where quality/functionality is disputable and price is very low
>(PC DOCs, Verity...) there is no real money. On the other hand,
>vendors aiming the high-end market should not complain.
I don't the evidence supports this view.
>Own experience is that relational vendors are complete uncapableof providing a
>good solution for text retrieval. The products
>are usually very poor on the funcionality side and miserable on
>the performance side.
That's really interesting information. This is about the 5th time
I've heard this; always anecdotal evidence, but it adds up. -Tim
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)