AppliedArtifact

No. 02 — Independent study, 2026

Self-initiated exploration. Not commissioned or deployed.

Publishing as a system

The institutional question: how does an institution keep a thousand pages current when nobody's job is "the website"?

Content model — v3, neutral sample

Program

owner — dept
review — 90 d

● Current

Course

owner — registrar
review — term

● Review due

Person

owner — HR feed
review — auto

● Current

Surface — program page

Surface — catalog index

Fig. B Content model — working artifact

Figure ratio — 4:3

The full study

Why it is difficult

Ownership is distributed across hundreds of publishers; content mirrors the org chart; review happens only when something breaks publicly.

Constraints & stakeholders

Registrar, departments, HR systems and communications each hold authoritative fragments; accuracy carries legal and reputational weight.

Hypothesis

Structure outperforms heroics: owners and review cycles attached to content types — not pages — keep a large site current without a heroic web team.

Approach

A content model with governance fields on every type; pages become surfaces composed from one source, so a fact updates everywhere at once.

Decisions & tradeoffs

Governance states visible to editors, invisible to visitors; the study holds itself to three types to keep the model legible.

What it demonstrates

Content modeling, governance design and structured data — the machinery beneath accessible, findable institutional publishing.

What we would measure

Proposed, not achieved: authoring effort per update; share of pages past their review date; duplicate-content rate across units.

To test with a real institution

Whether the workflow fits a real CMS and real editors' capacity — governance that ignores workload fails quietly.

Discuss a pilotAppliedArtifact