Portier, Pierre-Édouard, and Sylvie Calabretto. “Multi-structured documents and the emergence of annotations vocabularies.” Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2010, Montréal, Canada, August 3 - 6, 2010. In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2010. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, vol. 5 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol5.Portier01.
Balisage: The Markup Conference 2010 August 3 - 6, 2010
Balisage Paper: Multi-structured documents and the emergence of annotations vocabularies
Pierre-Édouard Portier
Université de Lyon, CNRS, INSA-Lyon, LIRIS, UMR5205, F-69621
Pierre-Édouard Portier is a computer science engineer. He has graduated in September
2007 from INSA-Lyon
school with a Master degree in computer science. He is continuing his studies at INSA-Lyon
as a Ph.D student.
He is working in the DRIM team of the LIRIS laboratory under the supervision of Sylvie
Calabretto.
Sylvie Calabretto
Université de Lyon, CNRS, INSA-Lyon, LIRIS, UMR5205, F-69621
Sylvie Calabretto : Doctor in Computer Sciences of the « Institut National des Sciences
Appliquées de
Lyon » in 1993. Presently, Associate professor at the Institut National des Sciences
Appliquées de Lyon
(INSA-Lyon) and Researcher at the Laboratory of Images and Information Systems Engineering
(LIRIS).
Co-superviser of nine PhD dissertation. Has published one collective book and about
100 papers on various
computing subjects among which Structured Document, Information Retrieval and Digital
Libraries.
The construction of multi-structured documents often implies the
definition of annotations vocabularies. Moreover, in a multi-users context, the
growth of these vocabularies has to be controlled. Therefore, we propose using the
trace of users activity to limit this growth and to document the vocabularies. For
example, a user will be able to follow and annotate a term in the context of its
surrounding actions from its creation to the last time it was used. From a broader
point of view, this work is grounded on our Web based philological platform,
DINAH, and is mainly motivated by our collaboration with a group of philosophers
studying the handwritten manuscripts of Jean-Toussaint Desanti.
We proposed [Portier2009] a methodology for the construction of
multi-structured documents. We add tools for documenting and managing the
evolution of the terms and relations created by the users for the description of structures.
The following ideas have been conceived in the context of a digital library
project that includes a group of philosophers interested by the work of Jean-Toussaint
Desanti[1].
Our documents are digital images of manuscripts' pages (more than
35 000 pages). From a technical point of view, our users transcribe, annotate and
reorder those pages.
The transcription is the association of the image of a manuscript's page with the
digitized version of its textual content. Many levels of transcription have been
defined[2]:
from the diplomatic transcription whose result should be the exact copy
of the manuscript (the layout of the page is retained, abbreviations are not
expanded, etc.) to transcriptions that remain easy to read. However, with the rich
underlying data
structures of existing philological software platforms this choice can be
postponed to the editorial phase when multiple versions of the transcription will
be produced. Moreover, the TEI[3] defines
well documented and customizable tag sets (thanks to the Roma tool that generates
validators for ad-hoc customizations[4]). Finally,
there are useful case studies ([Huitfeldt2004], [Gants2006], ...) of electronic editions projects. They give us
perspectives on the processes of choosing a tag set, establishing encoding rules,
etc. They also introduce to more general problems that most certainly appeared from
the required formalization of electronic edition. For example, the two notions of
representation and interpretation benefit from being presented as a conceptual
continuum: "common sense" always seems to be able to distinguish between the two
concepts, to draw a border, but every time we look closer this border vanishes. As
a second example, the computer programs considered as tools make the interactive
relationship between the user and the text explicit.
A particularity of the Jean-Toussaint Desanti Archives is the necessity of
reordering the handwritten pages. In fact, we have noticed that this problem
applies to many projects of electronic edition of handwritten manuscripts. Often,
the pages are initially disordered: the documents may have passed through
the hands of many people and lost their initial order. More importantly, for
testing philological hypothesis, it is often interesting to reorder collections of
pages, even though these reorderings do not correspond to explicit choices of the
author. We choose two examples from the J.T.Desanti Archives in order to
illustrate this problem.
For the first example, let say a user isolates the four pages of Figure 1 from a set of unclassified pages. Since three of the four
pages are being numbered in their top right corner, he easily manages to reorder
them. Nonetheless this reordering is to be considered as an interpretation and the
original order and context must be preserved. Later, inside an other unclassified
set of pages, a page is found that shares many similarities with the first page of
the new four pages collection. Some researcher concludes that the newly
created collection may be an alternative version of the page just found.
Figure 1
Four pages from an unclassified collection
For the second example, a user finds, in the last page of a
notebook, a reference to an unknown appendix (see Figure 2). Later, the appendix is found inside an unclassified set
of pages (see Figure 3). He will insert the appendix after the
last page of the notebook, but the original context in which the appendix was found
must be preserved as it is highly significant since it helped to link the content
of
the notebook with the themes developed by the unclassified set of pages where the
appendix was found.
Figure 2
A reference to an unknown appendix
Figure 3
Found appendix
We spent some time describing this simple situation of reordering set of pages ...
for we
find it interesting and relevant to the forthcoming considerations. A reordering is
formally quite simple: we move a few pages, we add some annotations ... But it may
convey valuable interpretations.
We divided the users activity into three main operations: transcription, reordering
and annotation. We briefly covered the first two and should now introduce to the third
one. However, the annotation operation is much more generic: transcription as well
as
reordering depend on annotations. But it seemed convenient to introduce them
separately. Our annotations are simple relations and we keep them in a RDF store.
Users create those relations in a GUI (see Figure 4) that
imitates the graph structure of the data.
Figure 4
DINAH main interface
Those relations are used to build a faceted
navigation interface (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
Faceted navigation interface
We should now clarify our orientation towards vocabularies of terms. According to
Patrick Durusau [Durusau2006], vocabularies of terms and relations
have to be defined before any annotations are created. However, as explained by Dino
Buzzetti and Jerome McGann [Buzzetti2006], a new annotation modifies
the semiotic nature of the document by facilitating new interpretations that can
themselves arouse the desire to add new annotations in order to formalize those
interpretations, ... thus feeding a theoretically endless hermeneutic process.
Thereby, it seems necessary to allow a continuous creation of terms. Our work focuses
on how to effectively enable this creation. That being said, we recognize the
relevance and importance of capitalization work such as the TEI. However, we try to
focus on the problem of the emergence of annotation vocabularies when some
researchers study a set of documents.
We first provide a short introduction to the notion of "sign".
We then describe the evolutions of our model for the construction of
multi-structured documents. Next, we introduce the notion of the "trace of users
interactions" and we show how this trace can be used for managing and documenting
vocabularies of terms and relations. Then, we explain how a very interesting activity
of models
confrontation emerged from the possibility of interacting with the trace. We will
illustrate the notions with examples from our philological platform named
DINAH (Dinah is Irrelevantly Not Alice Heron). In the end, we will compare DINAH with
other philological platforms.
Around the concept of sign
The ideas that will be presented in the next sections were conceived from reflections
about the concept
of sign. Historically, this concept was created approximately at the same time by
two unrelated men: Ferdinand
de Saussure (1857-1913) a Swiss linguist and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) an
American philosopher and
logician (and statistician, and astronomer, and ...). Their conceptions were in many
aspects quite
similar.
Saussure concept of sign makes use of two notions: the signifier and the signified.
The signifier is the form
of the sign while the signified is the concept represented by the sign. Figure 6
shows the traditional way of representing the Saussurean sign. A simplistic interpretation
of Saussure ideas
would tend to consider the sign as a univocal relation between a signified and a signifier.
But it would
clearly be a misinterpretation! For Saussure, the relation signified/signifier is
linguistically arbitrary.
Moreover he saw "meaning" as wholly relational or structural: the meaning of a sign
arises from its relations
with other signs and not from some essential property or reference to a material world.
Figure 6
A representation of the Saussurean concept of sign: the signification is the relationship
between the
signified and the signifier represented by the arrows.
Peirce produced a triadic model of the sign whose terms are: the representamen or
the form of the sign,
the interpretant or the sense made of a sign (not to be confused with the interpreter)
and the object to which
the sign refers. The representamen can be related to the signifier and the interpretant
to the signified. So,
the new term present in Peirce's model with no equivalent in Saussure's model is the
object. However, it can
be argued that a referent was implicitly present in Saussure's model. What really
differentiates the two
models is that the interpretant can be considered as a sign in the mind of the interpreter.
It implies that
the interpretation is a process, Peirce has named this process the semiosis. It seems
clear from the
above definitions that the semiosis is theoretically unlimited (the notion of "unlimited
semiosis" was first
introduced by Umberto Eco). For Saussure the interpretation was the highlighting of
the complex relations a
sign maintained with other signs within a linguistic structure ; while for Peirce
the interpretation is the
always to be done process of connecting signs.
Modern interpretations of Peirce's model, with its concept of semiosis, tend to erase
the notion of
"signified" since the interpretant can always become a new sign. We found a quite
interesting example in
Gregory Bateson work [Bateson1979] (it should be noted that we modify it quite slightly). We
consider a mathematical property: "The sum of the first n odd numbers is equal to
n squared". Figure 7 shows three representations of this property. Is the content the same, and only the
form varying? It seems more satisfying not to speak in terms of signifier/signified,
form/content, etc. but
to consider different configurations of signifiers leading to different interpretations.
Incidentally, this
last example can lead to the understanding of difficult concepts: the difference between
cardinal and ordinal
numbers.
Figure 7
Three representations of a mathematical property
In computer science, when references are made to Peirce, it is most of the time in
a logical framework where first order
logic is used as a uniform way to represent assertions in order to compute new assertions.
The best example of
this trend being the work of John F. Sowa [Sowa2000]. In fact, the conceptual graphs were
derived from the work of Peirce. However, we rarely find work inspired by the notion
of semiosis. That is what
we try to do by offering to the user signifiers to interpret and by taking into account
results from its
interpretations. The next sections will illustrate this approach.
A model for the construction of multi-structured documents
Definitions
We first give some definitions:
A resource is anything uniquely identified by an URI. Fragments, intervals,
zones, terms, classes, binary relations, vocabularies and documents
are resources.
A fragment is a part of document content. Our documents are
textual documents and manuscripts images. In the case of textual documents a fragment
is the pair (D, (inf,
sup)) where D is a document identifier, and (inf, sup) is an integer interval addressing
a part of the
document. In the case of images a fragment is the pair (I, ((x1, y1), (x2, y2)) where
I is an image identifier
and ((x1, y1), (x2, y2)) are the coordinates of a rectangular zone of the image.
A term is a string of characters.
A class is a set of terms.
A binary relation R(x, y) links together two resources
A vocabulary is a set of binary relations
A multi-structured document is
a document with fragments participating in relations that belong to multiple
vocabularies.
How can these vocabularies be constructed? This is the problem
we address. But before proceeding further, we illustrate the previous definitions
with an example. Consider the following scenario: a philologist finds a
consistent subset about Marx inside a stack of pages of consequent size. He isolates
this subset by creating a new collection (using the GUI of Figure 4). He creates a relation ”mainSubject” between this
collection and the term ”marx” from the class ”Author”. He starts the transcription
of the
collection and also creates relations, such as ”quotation”, ”citationTitle”, between
intervals of the transcribed text and the document (using the GUI of Figure 8). He discovers later that this collection is in fact a
preparation for another work he found in the archive. He creates a relation
”preparationFor” between the two collections. Etc. Etc. These newly created relations
dynamically update the faceted navigation interface that can be used to find specific
collections or pages by iterative refinement (see Figure 5).
Figure 8
Screenshot from the transcription interface
How is it that, for example, a user chooses to place the relation ”citationTitle”
within the ”citations” vocabulary while he affects the relation ”hasLine” to the
”physicalStructure” vocabulary? In a multi-users context, how a user will know the
meaning of a relation created by someone else? We will address the first question
in
the remaining parts of this section, and the second question in the next section.
We
should now recall some characteristics of the existing models for the representation
of multi-structured documents.
Existing models
Multi-structured documents have to be analyzed in their historical context where
the most used formalisms for documents representation (first SGML then XML)
implied tree structures. That is why this problem has so far been considered under
the technical point of view of overlapping hierarchies. From our previous example,
let say a page has been transcribed and relations have been created to indicate
some citations. Then, the lines of text are isolated in order to align the
transcription with the manuscript facsimile. It might happen that a quotation
overlaps two lines and there would be locally a graph structure: a natural use of
XML becomes impossible (see Figure 9). We now describe
different solutions for the representation of multi-structured documents.
Figure 9
An example of overlapping markup
We divide the set of existing solutions into four classes: historical solutions, adhoc
solutions, models not compatible with XML and finally models compatible with XML.
CONCUR [Goldfarb1990] is a feature of SGML designed to allow the
integration inside a same document of tags extracted from different DTDs. Thus, if
the
definitions of the overlapping tags appear in different DTDs, the representation
problem of multi-structured documents is solved. However, because of its complexity,
this SGML proposal has never been fully implemented.
The TEI describes different syntactic solutions for the representation of multiple
hierarchies into the same text (as the use of milestones or the fragmentation of
elements, etc.). These solutions make impossible using standard XML tools (XQuery,
XPath, ...).
Since the main problem for the representation of multi-structured documents seems
to
be the syntactic limitations of XML, some solutions are based on models with
alternative syntaxes. However they cannot profit from the galaxy of tools offered
by
XML. Among those solutions, we can distinguish LMNL [Tennison2002]
and TexMecs [Huitfeldt2003] which are alternatives to XML (formal
models and syntaxes) specifically designed for the representation of overlapping
structures, from propositions that take advantage of the native graph model of RDF
to
represent multi-structured documents. Among these, the most convincing one certainly
is
EARMARK [Peroni2009]. The notions of ”location”, ”range”, ”markup
item”, etc. for the modeling of multi-structured documents are precisely defined in
an
OWL ontology. Moreover, the SPARQL language can be used to query the documents.
The origins of the EARMARK proposal are to be found in two previous
works: annotations graphs [Maeda2002] are used, in the context of
linguistic research, to represent documents as graphs so as to avoid the overlapping
hierarchies problem ; RDFTef [Tummarello2005] can be seen as an
adaptation of annotations graphs to the RDF standard formalism.
At last, XCONCUR [Schonefeld2006] has the same notation as the SGML
CONCUR option and is based on a multi-rooted trees model. Moreover, the XCONCUR-CL
language can define constraints between tree layers.
Finally there are solutions compatible with XML. They either extend the XML
model itself or modify some XML tools (such as XPath and XQuery) to work with
multi-structured documents. As representatives of the first category, the multi-colored
trees [Jagadish2004] and the delay nodes [LeMaitre2006] solutions have very similar models based on an extension
of the core XML model to consider documents as set of XML trees. Unlike
multi-colored trees, delay nodes need no XPath extension in order to
navigate inside the structures.
We now introduce members of the second category
(modification of XML tools to
operate on otherwise standard XML documents). GODDAG [Sperberg-McQueen] (General Ordered Descendant
Directed Acyclic Graph), MSXD [Bruno2006], MonetDB [Alink2006] and MultiX [Chatti2007] are similar
proposals since in each case several trees
are defined over the same textual content by sharing their leaves (textual fragments).
MSXD is the first to introduce the idea of a schema for multi-structured documents.
The MonetDB proposal is an extension of the MonetDB/XQuery XML SGBD with optimized
XPath query
operators with four new axis steps. These steps have been implemented very
efficiently by using a region index and fast algorithms. MSDM is a lightweight solution
that needs no more than a few specialized XQuery functions. Each one of these four
previous solutions fails at managing change in content or structures since the entire
structures have to be reconstructed every time modifications happen. MuLaX [Hilbert2005] is an adaptation of the previously described SGML CONCUR
option to the XML world. An editor has been developed as an Eclipse plugin for the
creation of MuLaX documents, but no query mechanism has been defined. Finally, feature
structures [Stegmann2009] are a general purpose knowledge representation
format that can be used for XML documents annotated with
heterogeneous tag sets, it was adopted as a standard by the TEI in 2006. Feature
structures have solid mathematical foundations. In particular the two operations of
unification and generalization are well defined and offer very interesting perspectives
for the combination of multi-structured documents. However, there is no specialized
query
mechanism and no way of managing change in content or structures.
Finally, there is the solution proposed by Desmond Schmidt [Schmidt2009]. Its model is named MVD for Multi-Version document. It is
very similar to the kind of acyclic graph models we saw before (GODDAG, MSDM, etc.).
But this is the only solution to provide an efficient algorithm for updating
multi-structured documents. The author explains that updating reduces to merging a
new
version into an existing MVD. Thus, he finds inspiration from algorithms conceived
for the
alignment of genetic sequences. Moreover, an heuristic has been developed to manage
block transpositions in a very short time !
Strategy for the construction of multi-structured documents
With the previous solutions, we understand what multi-structured documents are and
how they can be represented, but none of them seem to be interested in the way
structures appear! They must appear in the process of document construction.
In this section we study this process. First of all, we
choose to represent our documents in the RDF formalism but, as it will soon be
explained, we voluntarily impose each structure to be hierarchical (as for the
MultiX, MSXD and GODDAG solutions).
The technical issue of multi-structured documents is the one of overlapping
hierarchies. Moreover, if we do not consider the documents as immutable objects
but as dynamic objects that have to be constructed, overlapping hierarchies
happen at precise moments. Let say a user annotated some citations titles and
quotations he found in his transcription of a manuscript. Later he is told that in
order to precisely align his transcription with the original facsimile he should
annotate each line of the manuscript. So, he starts this new annotation task and
since the ”line” relation did not exist he adds it to the current vocabulary (the
one already containing ”citationTitle”, ”quotation”, etc.). Then, while he has
already marked some lines, a line overlaps with an existing citation title. Our
system (DINAH) will then alert him about an incompatibility between the relations
”citationTitle” and ”line” and will advice him to assign either ”citationTitle” or
”line” to another, and possibly new, vocabulary. In this case, he may assign
”line” to a ”physical structure” vocabulary. Figure 10 is a sample
of the resulting graph.
Figure 10
A sample RDF representation of a multi-structured document
Finally, our strategy for the management of multi-structured documents promotes the
construction of a multiplicity of structures that should reflect the perspectives
adopted by the users while accessing the documents. Each user has the liberty to
create new vocabularies. Moreover, when overlapping hierarchies are detected users
are
encouraged to solve the problem by introducing a new vocabulary. In our multi-users
context, this liberty could lead to an uncontrolled growth of vocabularies with lots
of duplicate usages, synonyms, etc. That is why the next section presents a solution
for the dynamic documentation of vocabularies.
Managing and documenting vocabularies with the trace of users interactions
Dynamic documentation
Our idea for the dynamic documentation of vocabularies relies on the
monitoring of user actions. When a user wants to know how to use a term or a
relation he can ask for a representation of the trace of users actions centered on
the term (or relation) creation or any of its instances.
This trace can itself be annotated. Thanks to these annotations users can
document the vocabularies (see Figure 11 and Figure 12).
Figure 11
Presentation of the trace of users interactions: the user PEP added the term "private"
to the class
"Visibility" ; an annotation documents this term.
Figure 12
Presentation of the trace of users interactions: a page has been deleted just before
the new term
"private" was added.
Trace model
The first work we are aware of that made use of traces, dealt with the development
of HCI for collaborative systems [Dourish1995]. There are few
works dealing with the use of activity traces for knowledge management ([Laflaquiere2006] being one of the most representative). They
insist on the reflexive nature of the trace as a way of sharing knowledge.
They also define generic
(and quite complex) activities' models, as well as rules to transform the
granularity of the original trace so as to make sense for the user.
However, we choose to adopt a more lightweight approach, well adapted to our needs.
We define a simple RDF vocabulary to model actions (below is a definition
in the turtle RDF syntax). Every time a developer adds
a new Action to the system he has to create sub-properties of the ”withArgument”
property for each argument of the new action. Moreover, we have simple SPARQL queries
to
build representations of the trace (see Figure 11 and Figure 12).
As explained, users of our system need to reorder subsets of the
archive. We have insisted on the fact that this operation may require a lot of
interpretation. Therefore, we were very interested to find the users of our system
engaged in an activity we didn't anticipate. While disagreeing with an ordering
from user B, user A navigated inside the trace and found the actions that lead to
the problematic ordering. Then we encouraged him to annotate these actions in order
to
share his disagreement. It appeared that the trace is a very well adapted tool for
documenting a new term (or relation) or finding interesting configurations. But it
may not be the correct tool for the development of arguments as it relies on a recursive
mechanism of annotations that is not meant to support conversations.
Comparisons with some existing philological platforms
We analyze our work relatively to other philological platforms. We divide them in
two categories: first
platforms of historical interest, next Web based platforms.
Historical platforms
BAMBI [Bozzi1997] (Better Access to Manuscripts and Browsing of
Images) is, according to the authors, ”an hypermedia system allowing historians to
read and transcribe manuscripts, write annotations, and navigate between the words
of the transcription and the matching piece of image in the facsimile of the
manuscript”. It was the first philological software platform. It does not allow
typed annotations.
Part of the DEBORA [Nichols2000] (Digital Access to Books of the
Renaissance) project consisted in a digital library system with collaborative
features. It introduced the notion of ”virtual books”. A virtual book is the
representation of a path among pages of the entire archive. But they are not
resources themselves, they cannot be annotated. However we can consider this
system as a first step towards a reflexive system that places users in front of
their own activities.
HyperNietzsche [D'Iorio2007] (today Nietzschesource) was a
pioneer digital library platform. A path mechanism is present, very similar to the
virtual books of the DEBORA project. However as for the virtual books, the paths
are not resources and thus cannot truly enter in a collaborative process that
would allow to exchange and annotate them.
Web based platforms
Collate [Stein2004], TALIA [Hahn2008], PINAKES
[Scotti2001], BRICKS [Bertoncini2007] and
JeromeDL [Kruk2007] are philological platforms based on semantic
Web technologies. They offer high quality mechanisms for collaborative
annotations. But they do not provide convergence mechanisms for creating and
documenting vocabularies.
Armarius [Doumat2008] is used to classify and annotate
collections of manuscripts. It only provides untyped generic annotations. But it
offers a view of all the user actions that occurred during the current session and
plans to apply graph matching algorithms in order to, for example, deduce
probabilities for the next actions. Thus, it can be compared with our use of
traces.
Conclusions
We proposed an open system that allows the construction of multi-structured
documents and the creation of annotation vocabularies. In order to manage the
growth of the vocabularies we introduced a dynamic documentation mechanism based
on the trace of users actions. Finally, all the propositions have been
implemented in our philological software platform named DINAH.
[Huitfeldt2004] Claus Huitfeldt, Editorial
Principles of Wittgenstein's Nachlass—The Bergen Electronic Edition. in Dino Buzzetti, Giuliano
Pancaldi and Harold Short (eds): Augmenting Comprehension: Digital Tools and the History
of Ideas, Office for
Humanities Communication, London 2004 (ISBN 1 897791 18 6)
[Bateson1979] Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary
Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences). Hampton Press. ISBN 1-57273-434-5,
1979.
[Goldfarb1990] C.F. Goldfarb,
The SGML handbook. Oxford University Press,
Inc., New York, NY, USA (1990)
[Tennison2002] J. Tennison and W. Piez, The
layered markup and annotation language (lmnl). In: Extreme Markup Languages. (2002)
[Huitfeldt2003] Claus Huitfeldt and Michael Sperberg-McQueen,
Texmecs: An experimental markup meta- language for complex documents.
(2003)
[Peroni2009] Angelo Di Iorio, Silvio Peroni and Fabio Vitali,
Towards markup support for full GODDAGs and beyond: the EARMARK approach.
Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009, Montréal, Canada, August 11 - 14,
2009. In Proceedings of
Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, vol.
3 (2009).
doi:https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol3.Peroni01.
[Maeda2002] K. Maeda, S. Bird, X. Ma and H. Lee, Creating annotation tools with the annotation graph toolkit. In: Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. (Apr 2002)
[Tummarello2005] G. Tummarello, C. Morbidoni and E. Pierazzo,
Toward textual encoding based on
rdf. In: ELPUB. (2005) 57–63
[Jagadish2004] H.V. Jagadish, L.V.S. Lakshmanan, M. Scannapieco,
D. Srivastava and N. Wiwatwattana, Colorful xml: one hierarchy isn’t enough.
In: SIGMOD ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management
of data, New York,
NY, USA, ACM (2004) 251–262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1007568.1007598
[LeMaitre2006] Jacques Le Maitre, Describing multistructured xml documents by means of delay nodes. In: DocEng ’06:
Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Document engineering, New York, NY, USA,
ACM (2006)
155–164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1166160.1166200
[Sperberg-McQueen] C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, C. Huitfeldt, Goddag: A data structure for overlapping hierarchies. In: DDEP/PODDP. (2000)
139–160
[Bruno2006] E. Bruno, and E. Murisasco, Multistructured xml textual documents. GESTS International Transactions on Computer
Science and Engineering 34(1) (november 2006) 200–211
[Alink2006] W. Alink, R.A.F. Bhoedjang, A.P. de Vries and P.A.
Boncz, Efficient xquery support for stand-off annotation. In: XIME-P.
(2006)
[Chatti2007] N. Chatti, S. Kaouk, S. Calabretto, and J.M. Pinon,
MultiX: an XML-based formalism to encode multi-structured documents. In:
Proceedings of Extreme Markup Languages’2007, Montréal (Canada). (August 2007)
[Hilbert2005] M. Hilbert, A. Witt, M. Quebec and O. Schonefeld,
Making concur work. In: Extreme Markup Languages. (2005)
[Stegmann2009] J. Stegmann and A. Witt, Tei
feature structures as a representation format for multiple annotation and generic
xml documents.
In: Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009. Balisage Series on Markup
Technologies, vol. 3
(2009). doi:https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol3.Stegmann01. (August 2009)
[Laflaquiere2006] Laflaquière, J., Settouti, L.S., Pri ́, Y.,
Mille, A.: Trace-based framework for experience management and engineering.
In: KES. (2006) 1171–1178
[Bozzi1997] Bozzi, A., Calabretto, S.: The
digital library and computational philology: The bambi project. In: ECDL. Volume 1324 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science., Springer (1997) 269–285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026733.
[Nichols2000] Nichols, D.M., Pemberton, D., Dalhoumi, S., Larouk,
O., Belisle, C., Twidale, M.B.: Debora: developing an interface to support collaboration
in a digital library. In: European Conference on Digital Libraries, Springer (2000)
239–248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45268-0_22.
[D'Iorio2007] D’Iorio, P.: Nietzsche on new
paths: The hypernietzsche project and open scholarship on the web. In: Maria Cristina Fornari,
Sergio Franzese (ds.), Friedrich Nietzsche. Edizioni e interpretazioni, Pisa ETS.
(2007)
[Stein2004] Stein, A., Keiper, J., Bezerra, L., Brocks, H., Thiel,
U.: Collaborative research and documentation of european film history: The collate
collaboratory. In International Journal of Digital Information Management (JDIM), special issue
on
Web-based collaboratories from centres without. (2004) 30–39
[Hahn2008] Hahn, D., Nucci, M., Barbera, M.: The talia library
platform - rapidly building a digital library on rails. In: 4th Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web.
(2008)
[Scotti2001] Scotti, A., Nuzzo, D.: Pinakes – a modeling
environment for scientific heritage database applications. In: Proc. of Reconstructing science – Contributions
to the enhancement of the European scientific heritage Workshop, Ravenna, Italy (2001)
[Bertoncini2007] Bertoncini, M.: On the move towards the
european digital library: Bricks, tel, michael and delos converging experiences. In: Research and Advanced
Technology for Digital Libraries, 11th European Conference, ECDL 2007, Budapest, Hungary,
September 16-21,
2007, Proceedings. Volume 4675 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2007)
440–441.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74851-9_37.
[Kruk2007] Kruk, S.R., Woroniecki, T., Gzella, A., Dabrowski, M.:
Jeromedl - a semantic digital library. In Golbeck, J., Mika, P., eds.:
Semantic Web Challenge. Volume 295 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings., CEUR-WS.org (2007)
[Doumat2008] Doumat, R., Egyed-Zsigmond, E., Pinon, J.M., Csiszar,
E.: Online ancient documents: Armarius. In: ACM DocEng’08. Proceeding of the
Eighth ACM Symposium on Doucument Engineering, ACM (September 2008) 127–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1410140.1410167
[Schonefeld2006] Schonefeld, O., Witt, A.: Towards validation of concurrent markup. In: Proceedings of the Extreme Markup 2006, Montréal, Canada
[Schmidt2009] Schmidt, D.: Merging Multi-Version Texts: a Generic Solution to the Overlap Problem. Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009, Montréal, Canada, August 11 -
14, 2009. In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009. Balisage Series
on Markup Technologies, vol. 3 (2009). doi:https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol3.Schmidt01.
Claus Huitfeldt, Editorial
Principles of Wittgenstein's Nachlass—The Bergen Electronic Edition. in Dino Buzzetti, Giuliano
Pancaldi and Harold Short (eds): Augmenting Comprehension: Digital Tools and the History
of Ideas, Office for
Humanities Communication, London 2004 (ISBN 1 897791 18 6)
Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary
Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences). Hampton Press. ISBN 1-57273-434-5,
1979.
Angelo Di Iorio, Silvio Peroni and Fabio Vitali,
Towards markup support for full GODDAGs and beyond: the EARMARK approach.
Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009, Montréal, Canada, August 11 - 14,
2009. In Proceedings of
Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, vol.
3 (2009).
doi:https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol3.Peroni01.
K. Maeda, S. Bird, X. Ma and H. Lee, Creating annotation tools with the annotation graph toolkit. In: Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. (Apr 2002)
H.V. Jagadish, L.V.S. Lakshmanan, M. Scannapieco,
D. Srivastava and N. Wiwatwattana, Colorful xml: one hierarchy isn’t enough.
In: SIGMOD ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management
of data, New York,
NY, USA, ACM (2004) 251–262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1007568.1007598
Jacques Le Maitre, Describing multistructured xml documents by means of delay nodes. In: DocEng ’06:
Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Document engineering, New York, NY, USA,
ACM (2006)
155–164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1166160.1166200
E. Bruno, and E. Murisasco, Multistructured xml textual documents. GESTS International Transactions on Computer
Science and Engineering 34(1) (november 2006) 200–211
N. Chatti, S. Kaouk, S. Calabretto, and J.M. Pinon,
MultiX: an XML-based formalism to encode multi-structured documents. In:
Proceedings of Extreme Markup Languages’2007, Montréal (Canada). (August 2007)
J. Stegmann and A. Witt, Tei
feature structures as a representation format for multiple annotation and generic
xml documents.
In: Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009. Balisage Series on Markup
Technologies, vol. 3
(2009). doi:https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol3.Stegmann01. (August 2009)
Paul Dourish, Developing a
reflective model of collaborative systems. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2, 1 (Mar. 1995),
40-63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/200968.200970
Bozzi, A., Calabretto, S.: The
digital library and computational philology: The bambi project. In: ECDL. Volume 1324 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science., Springer (1997) 269–285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026733.
Nichols, D.M., Pemberton, D., Dalhoumi, S., Larouk,
O., Belisle, C., Twidale, M.B.: Debora: developing an interface to support collaboration
in a digital library. In: European Conference on Digital Libraries, Springer (2000)
239–248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45268-0_22.
D’Iorio, P.: Nietzsche on new
paths: The hypernietzsche project and open scholarship on the web. In: Maria Cristina Fornari,
Sergio Franzese (ds.), Friedrich Nietzsche. Edizioni e interpretazioni, Pisa ETS.
(2007)
Stein, A., Keiper, J., Bezerra, L., Brocks, H., Thiel,
U.: Collaborative research and documentation of european film history: The collate
collaboratory. In International Journal of Digital Information Management (JDIM), special issue
on
Web-based collaboratories from centres without. (2004) 30–39
Hahn, D., Nucci, M., Barbera, M.: The talia library
platform - rapidly building a digital library on rails. In: 4th Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web.
(2008)
Scotti, A., Nuzzo, D.: Pinakes – a modeling
environment for scientific heritage database applications. In: Proc. of Reconstructing science – Contributions
to the enhancement of the European scientific heritage Workshop, Ravenna, Italy (2001)
Bertoncini, M.: On the move towards the
european digital library: Bricks, tel, michael and delos converging experiences. In: Research and Advanced
Technology for Digital Libraries, 11th European Conference, ECDL 2007, Budapest, Hungary,
September 16-21,
2007, Proceedings. Volume 4675 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2007)
440–441.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74851-9_37.
Doumat, R., Egyed-Zsigmond, E., Pinon, J.M., Csiszar,
E.: Online ancient documents: Armarius. In: ACM DocEng’08. Proceeding of the
Eighth ACM Symposium on Doucument Engineering, ACM (September 2008) 127–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1410140.1410167
Schmidt, D.: Merging Multi-Version Texts: a Generic Solution to the Overlap Problem. Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009, Montréal, Canada, August 11 -
14, 2009. In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2009. Balisage Series
on Markup Technologies, vol. 3 (2009). doi:https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol3.Schmidt01.
Author's keywords for this paper:
digital libraries; vocabularies; interaction traces; overlapping hierarchies; XML
