Weaving Content with Coordination Widgets
Robert B. Allen
College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University
Philadelphia PA, 19107, USA
[email protected]
Abstract
Text, as the term suggests, is a texture of interwoven threads. The grammatical organization of the
words creates a cohesion of concepts. Beyond the words, additional conventions and structures – which
we call coordination widgets -- have been developed to support the reader’s comprehension and
navigation. These additional structures include tables of contents, reference lists, and footnotes.
Although they are known to every reader, they are rarely considered as a group. While known to every
reader they are rarely considered as a group. On one hand, the widgets incorporate a high degree of
structure. Thus, they related to formal structures for composite hypertexts. However, they also
depend on the semantics of the content. We take a cognitive perspective for describing the effects of
these widgets in supporting better comprehension and navigation of the texts. Introduce notion of
Templates. These issues could have implications for eReaders that do not capture some wellestablished techniques for texts. The tools proposed are more complex than most of the suggestions for
semantic markup that have been made to thus far. Indeed, the tools proposed here could lead to a new
generation of environments for interacting with text and other types of content.
INTRODUCTION
Published texts include more than words. They are supported by a range of what we term content
coordination widgets. These widgets are conventions and techniques which enrich the interaction with
the words. Many of these widgets emerged with the introduction of printing but we might expect a
new generation of tools with interactive services.
The emergence of eBooks demonstrates the enduring value of a complete, integrated conceptual
presentation even when highly-interactive but also highly fragmented hypertexts are so common. Such
information resources have many levels of explicit and implicit structure. While a general framework
has been developed for bibliographic metadata (e.g., [Svenonius]), there is no comparable framework
for content coordination widgets.
A framework for content coordination could have practical applications. The current generation of
markup languages and services to support interaction with text is ad hoc. A consistent framework
would allow the development of more effective user interaction with text browsers and eReaders.
Consider the treatment of footnotes by some eReaders. They are simply formatted as a part of the
static page. Scrolling to them and then return to the text can be very tedious. It would be possible to
code interaction with each widget separately but it should be helpful to develop an overall framework.
A general framework might also allow the development of new modes of interaction. Moreover, there
are many possibilities for new interactive reading widgets.
In the following section, we consider examples of the content coordination widgets. Then we consider
the linking and anchor structures. Finally, we introduce a grid for dimensions of the source models. There are
many opportunities for developing a new generation of interactive widgets.
CONTENT COORDINATION WIDGETS
Tables of Contents
Chapter and section help to orient readers and provide short conceptual previews of the associated
text. When extracted from the main body of the document and collected the headings form a Table of
Contents (TOC). While the hierarchical structure of TOCs is readily adapted to hierarchical interactive
© Copyright R.B. Allen, 2011
2
browsers (e.g., [Egan]), the actual structure is often more complex a hierarchy. For instance, a quick
survey of the TOCs of some chemistry textbooks found that there often a rich conceptual structure
within the hierarchy. In one case, successive chapters considering solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma
phases of matter but then went on to other topics. The headings often reflected a workflow that
described the steps in the synthesis of a chemical compound. Indeed, some TOCs use additional but ad
hoc features to present more nuanced structures within the content.
Structured Abstracts and Plot Summaries
While TOCs capture the formal structure as defined by the author, they do not necessarily capture the
salient points that may be most useful for readers who want an overview. Structured abstracts (e.g.,
[1, Lancaster]) provide such overviews by focusing on the key aspects of the content. Those
dimensions are generally based on the discourse structures expected for a given genre.
Many technical research articles have adopted structured abstracts. Editorial policy determines the
features they require and reflects the document structures expected by a specific community. A given
community may support several different standards. For instance, the American Dental Association
(ADA) for publications dealing with Clinical Practices requires the following sections:
Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions, Clinical Implications.
While, for Case Descriptions they require:
Background, Case Description, Clinical Implications
These required sections in the various types of structured abstracts naturally reflect the approaches
and researchers and the values of the communities they represent. In other words, they are outlines of
genres and, thus, we call them genre templates. These genre templates imply a structure but they are
not purely structural. As such, they go beyond structural hypertext models and, as we shall describe
below, beyond current proposals for standard web formats.
Even traditional abstracts which are not formally structured are implicitly structured. That is, they
often include much of the same information as the structured abstracts. Even non-technical reports
may have typical structures such as:
Purpose, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
In addition, plot synopses and summaries share some aspects of structured abstracts. They provide a
structured overview of stories including attributes such as characters and setting.
Citations and the Reference List
Citations are obviously related to simple hypertext links although their anchors can be complex.
Consider an example from [Zhai]:
Example 1:
Overexpression of the fusion protein in transgenic mice and rats reproduces
the Wld phenotype [12,13],….
The referent of the citations is clear, the two cited articles. From the text, it is also clear what we
expect them to show.
Consider a second example. This one from [X].
Example 2:
In particular, mitochondria are crucial in energy metabolism and as such have
been implicated in the aging process by one of the very first theories of aging
[2], the rate-of-living theory of aging [3], which suggested that the rate of
aging is proportional to the rate of energy metabolism (reviewed in [4]).
Some improvements to navigating citations have been proposed by [Shotton] and [deWaard].
Many systems have been proposed for categorizing the role of citation links. Such role assignments
appear to be a combination of the argument logic and the claims of the cited text. These structural
3
models might be effectively coupled with discourse or argumentation models to determine the citation
anchor.
The Reference List, when it appears, collects all the cited references. It is a distinct coordination
element. Structurally, a Reference List is based on of composite hypertext that could be thought of as
linking to both the source text and the cited works. It is often organized alphabetically. It can be
helpful as a quick guide to the reader. Interactive or “malleable” versions of the reference list are
described below.
Back of the Book Indexes
Unlike most algorithmic indexes, back-of-the-book indexes do not list all the terms that appear in a
text [Mainez; Stauber]. Indeed, they may list concepts that are discussed in the text but not
mentioned by name. Thus, we can call them concept indexes. They involve selection and insertion of
index terms based upon a book’s focus and expectations about what a given readers are likely to be
looking for. Back-of-the-book indexes can show how concepts are organized throughout a work.
Additional Coordination Widgets
Considered broadly, coordination widgets are any aspect of the presentation that goes beyond the text
itself. Within a text, there may be tables, figures, and other displays that complement the text itself.
While these are not usually considered in discourse analysis, the do add to the coherence of the text.
These features could be modeled as a composite hypertext. Semantic annotation [X] is analogous to
glossaries though the semantic annotations are machine-readable while the glossaries usually are not.
While we have focused on structured coordination widgets such as TOCs and structured abstracts,
several additional widgets are unstructured. Footnotes serve two functions. The first is as a format
for citations similar to those we have already covered. The second function is to provide an
unstructured discussion format for the author (e.g., [Grafton]).
Of course, it is common to link to explicit models outside the Work itself. These models range from
relatively static (e.g., maps, genealogies) to processes. The presentation of these models may also
range from relatively static (e.g., schematics) to interactive (e.g., information visualizations).
Mappings: Document to document mappings. For instance, for between adaptations of those works.
Exploring a Network of connected roles and concepts without a single path through the structure.
A Preface may include descriptions of the structure. Importantly, these can be indicative.
Colophons describe aspects of the printed edition such as the details of the font used.
A GENERAL FRAMEWORK
A complex information resource such as a book is composed of many interwoven threads. Indeed, the
word “text” is closely related to the word “textile”. In the course of ordinary reading, the separate
threads are of little direct interest to the reader. However, there are circumstances in which it is
useful to extract and highlight them. Toward that end, we take a broad view and propose that an
annotation is a link or mapping between an information resource and a source model or system.
Structure of Links and Anchors
Links provide an association between anchors. Links may be one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, or
many-to-many. Moreover, multi-headed links (one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many) may
have an ordering of the heads. These may all be viewed being some type of (perhaps implicit) linking
and may be viewed as forms of hypertext.
The Open Hypertext System (OHS) model [x] is a
comprehensive model for framework for hypertexts. OHS supports many attributes such as multiheaded anchor links. However, OHS is too general. So-called composite hypertexts [Halasz] are
combinations of hypertext features and are structurally related to coordination widgets. However, in
addition to the structure, the content and use are equally important. At a granular level, the
4
coordination widgets anchor to the discourse units within the texts. The source models (from which
the links originate) are highly varied.
The links have a direction, but in most cases the links can be useful in either direction.
These widgets are closely related to hypertext and the Open Hypertext Systems (OHS) movement
[Reich] provides a general framework for describing them. [van Ossenbruggen] has noted the overlap
between OHS and recent directions for the Semantic Web that emphasizes role labels. The complexity
of OHS goes beyond what is needed for the present discussion, but is sufficient for it.
Anchor regions from structure based on discourse as described in the previous section. These could
employ multi-part and thus require multi-headed links. In many cases, the anchors’ scope varies.
Links Anchored in Discourse Relationships
Discourse analysis emphasizes the coherence of texts by breaking the text into units based on their
meaning and then considering how those meaningful units combine to create coherence. While the
exact nature of the basic units is debated (e.g., [Schauer]), the effects are obvious. We are focused on
structure that identifies meaningful conceptual units. Generally, these boundaries are said to be
discourse structures.
As noted above, citations frequently are anchored with specific statements in the text.
So-called “semantic markup” is mostly on simple named annotation.
description.
We want a richer type of
The rhetorical relationships are particularly clear for scientific publications. De Waard [x] on the
discourse elements associated with sciecne research reports.
RST is rarely applied beyond a brief passages, but we believe there is a macro-structure. Genre
Templates. Macro-units.
Broadly speaking, discourse can be any sort of communication but several approaches have identified
specific discourse element. One well-known system is Swales’ IMRD that applies to scientific
argumentation. Other argumentation systems have widgets that include claims and evidence.
Narrative structure may arise from causal relationships. While XML is often used to define structure and
that structure does not necessarily follow meaning boundaries.
In addition, Citations with regions. There are many ways that knowledge of the discourse widgets can
be used by the text widgets. For instance, citation types are highly dependent on overall discourse
structure. Of course, methodologies are typically found in the methods section.
We could also have metadata from narrative structure and even from a workflow.
It is also important to note that discourse widgets do not stand alone but exist in the context of other
discourse widgets. They might be assigned metadata but that metadata might also include an attribute
for the role played by a unit of text. Indeed, that metadata tag could be the familiar descriptor for a
discourse element. Indeed, it might reflect the aspects included in the structured abstracts.
The notion of Template suggests that a set of related concepts must all occur. This can be effective
In some cases, we want a more powerful structural description with conditionals an looping.
We encourage greater emphasis on this type of content in developing interactive widgets.
Types and Characteristics of Source Content
The source
Figure 1 lists several three main categories of Systems. The first group is reflexive; that is, one part of
the document refers to other parts of the document. In the second group, there are links to related
materials that are not formally part of the original. The third group has links to knowledge organization
systems.
5
Two dimensions: Effect for readers (comprehension/navigation) versus the source of material to be
linked.
The first dimension refers to the reader’s cognition. The navigation function has sometimes been
recognized. By comprehension, we mean that
Some of the widgets facilitate extend reading comprehension and while other widgets support a
combination of overviews and navigation.
The second dimension is the relationship of the content model to the target content. This ranges from
integral to the document to collection-oriented tools that lead the use to a particular document.
The Integral widgets are part of the work and would generally be considered essential to it. Other
widgets are centered on target work but add supplementary.
Comprehension -----------------------------------------------Navigation & Survey
Integral
Figures and Tables
Table of Contents
Back of the Book Index
Abstract
Structured abstract
Supplemental
Appendix
Footnotes (commentary)
Glossary
Supplementary data sets
Semantic annotation
Reader’s interpretation or reaction
Citations
Reference list
Formally Related
Adaptation
Translations
Reviews
Figure 1. Grid of the source content that source used by coordination widgets. The two dimensions
reflect the reader’s needs and the relationship to the content.
Some of the assignments in the Figure are debatable. TOCs are internal but could be external.
Abstracts may or may not be part of the original work. In addition, traditional abstracts may or may or
may not describe links into the texts.
Glossaries have implicit links. Semantic annotations may be seen as machine-readable glossaries.
Another step is general-purpose reference works such as gazetteers.
While we have focused on widgets most often associated with reading and accessing information in
texts, these can provide advance organizers [Ausable, Bransford] other related widgets such exercises
support leaning Rothkopf].
Mappings across versions
The widgets in Figure 1 deal with the conceptual content but there are additional types of annotations
that relate to the non-conceptual aspects of the document. These are shown in Figure 2. They may be
as particular as copy edits or as broad as tagged corpora. While we have focused on coordination
widgets that link meaningful units, there are additional links that describe physical structure rather
than meaning.
•
Linguistic and Stylistic Notes
o Discourse and Narrative tags
6
•
•
o Parse trees
o Copy edits
Administrative Metadata
o Rights
o Preservation
o Technical
o Use
Expression-Level
o Page numbers
o Preface
o Colophon
Figure 2. Several types of non-conceptual annotation structures.
Discussion of RST issues. Some ambiguity with the discourse tags. They can be used to develop services.
We have focused on widgets for individual works, but there are related widgets at the collection level.
As shown in Fig 3,
Guided tours could be thought of as relative to a collection. Metadata assigned from Knowledge
Organization systems. There are a few cases of supporting comprehension across the collection.
Tools for exploring collections are sometimes called Reader’s Aids although that term could also be
applied to
Comprehension-------------------------------------------Navigation & Survey
Collection/Web
Level
Knowledge Organization Systems
Pathfinders and Guided Tours
Bibliographies
Search engines
Citation index
Catalog
Figure 3. Several types of non-conceptual annotation structures.
DISCUSSION
Text is supported by an array of coordination widgets. We need a much broader range of frameworks
for organizing and coordinating electronic materials. This paper has not addressed interactive widgets
and games. Compositionality of components in abstracts and TOCs.
Relationship of individual documents to collections of documents.
Structure in complex resources such as newspapers.
Mark-Up Systems
Several markup-systems now support advanced text features.
XML is purely hierarchical and meaningful units are more general that tidily organized. However, it is
worth mentioning work on XML retrieval in which index terms are weighted according to … XML
structures for indexing and retrieval. Includes automatic indexing by hierarchical structure. However,
in some cases, the discourse structure in not hierarchical.
The XML linking package, XLINK, incorporates attributes such as allowing simple multi-headed links and
assigning role types to the links. More to the point of developing support for the proposed widgets
TEIxml, Digital book standards, EPUB
7
METS has many hooks as a wrapper for complex information resources. For instance, METS Technical
metadata includes usage counts. Potentially, the Structural Metadata element of METS could be of
great use for indicating implicit structures. At first glance, the heading hierarchy of TOCs seems to
have a simple structure that could readily captured by METS StructMaps. To date, most
implementations of METS StructMaps focus on the relationship of files rather than conceptual-level
structures.
Composite features could be created with RDF.
This still does not support interactivity as a full programming language would.
Scheama.org, microformats.org
Text Object Models, and Linked Data, Collection-Level Tools, and Contextual
Descriptions
We have emphasized the use of content coordination widgets as applied to complete conceptual units.
Considering the text control widgets as adding to the coherence of the text. They are an adjunct to
discourse.
Note that we still observe the distinction between Work and Collection in Figure 1. This is different
from OAI-ORE [X] in which the material is all undifferentiated. OAI-ORE is essentially one type of
hypertext data model.
In some cases, the notion of a collection of information resources remains useful but in many cases
involving resources scattered across the Web. Dramatically change the notion of a collection to
describe it as a context for information search [HRLee].
Descriptions of Works in Wikipedia do beyond traditional plot summaries to include recommended
sections. We term these “contextual descriptions”. Is the concept of collection useful at this point?
Serials have always been handled as an exception to other works. Moreover, works in other media have
somewhat different policies.
We have introduced the notion of a Genre Template. The notion of text templates such as TOCs and
IMRD are related to the expectations of genres. Different from schemas which are unordered lists of
attributes.
Related notion of Discourse Macro-Units. These are also related to the notion of discourse
macrostructure (e.g., [Kintsch]) but that term usually refers to the overall meaning of a work rather
than a structure per se. Our Macro-units are also closely related to composites of simple discourse units
such as those described by Toulmin’s [x] argumentation structures are weakly structures. In which
Another important concept is local discourse or rhetorical structures such as suggested by RST.
Useful for “highly-structured” and “model-oriented scientific research reports” [Allen2007, 2011]
Collection level widgets point to specific texts but that is in the context of other parts of the
collection.
Interactive Widgets and Interfaces
A new generation of highly interactive widgets may be envisioned. Indeed, interactive version of
several widgets have already been developed or at least proposed. For instance,
interactivity can greatly enhance the possible modes of interaction of these coordination widgets. The
SuperBook document browser introduced an interactive table-of-contents in which search hits were
posted against the headings that composed the TOC [Egan]. Potentially, indexing could be done the
same way.
Similarly, index terms could also be interactively posted against structured abstracts. Possibly improve
increasingly multimedia models.
8
User-centered indexing [Fidel]
Interactive pages [Sutcliffe]
We need a much broader range of frameworks for organizing and coordinating electronic materials.
This paper has not addressed interactive widgets and games.
Several interactive services have been proposed but several others are possible. Interactivity has the
possibility to dramatically change the experience of reading by introducing personalization based on a
variety of factors such as local experience that particular text but it could also incorporate a broad
knowledge of a user’s background. Dynamic personalization of aids.
The Reference list itself could be interactive or malleable. The user could pick between alphabetical
order and citation for the display. Related citations.
A range of designs could be explored from simply marking the clusters of conceptually related units
within the hierarchical structure. A somewhat deeper revision might shift from displaying a
hierarchical TOC to displaying an interactive hypertext graph (cf., [Allen & Acheson]).
Text can often be ambiguous and that ambiguity can sometimes be an advantage. However, this is not always the
case. The emphasis on modeling and linking to events has implications for indexing processes.
[AllenModel]. There could be an advantage of authoring the structures rather than trying to extract
them.
Static indexes are unlikely to be used in electronic editions but some of their functionality has been
replaced by intra-text hypertext links.
While the importance of Work seems to be upheld, the notion of collection is less clear.
Highly coordinated maps with every change of scene.
Workbenches as collections of related tools. An environment to support readers. This approach should
greatly enhance the reader’s experience. Using information visualization and complex structures. There
is the possibility for a very rich set of services to surround the readers’ experience. Bi-directional
mappings between different documents and source models would be plausible in several cases. These
might be implemented with coordinated windows [8], although cross-domain context may present a
difficulty for users. Social annotations [Marshall Brush]. It would be helpful to have standard references
link or an API for storing state with the reference resources such as maps.
Personalization
Supporting personalization. Adaptive indexing – indexing for certain applications. Retrofitting text
versus a starting with a structured model. Standard sets of discourse tags for Works and, indeed for
other objects.
User-centered widgets such as user-based indexing [Fidel, AdaptiveHypertext].
Personalization and the notion of a work. The work is the text itself but the widgets are important
supplements.
Toward a fully personalized learning environment that deemphasizes complete works but that is in the
unknowable future.
Toward Comprehensive Standard
Hypermedia may include animated sequences.
Publishing standards to facilitate interoperability far beyond the current generation of
Annotations to supplement data sets.
coordinated windows [Baldanado].
For instance, the figures could be linked to the text via
Social links for interacting with others. Making annotations visible to others (e.g., [Marshall’s]
public/private distinction).
9
Standards to facilitate personalization.
Conclusion
In addition to their content, most documents incorporate some widgets that allow users to identify,
orient, or navigate to components of the document. We have proposed a general framework for
describing these widgets. The main goal of this paper is to encourage viewing these activities as a
whole related to the processes of reading and learning from content. We believe that will lead to
improved design and ultimately better performance. This paper has combined notions from the
bibliographic metadata, hypertext, discourse, and Semantic Web communities to understand the
complexity of coordination widgets.
Duality of building contextual understanding and learning the details in the text.
Although we strongly support the distinction between works and mere text objects, we also argue that
the greater attention needs to be placed on the relationship of text objects to whole.
Greater application to multimedia or hypermedia. These results may also point the way to a unified
model of rich interactive scholarly documents. In addition to rich linking, there This is also consistent
with model-oriented approaches to scholarly publications [Allen]
Coordinating discourse widgets, theories of reading to describing and supporting access to works.
Multi-models across a broad range of structures.
Primacy of model-oriented approaches over linked data.
Links defined by parameters within the framework of the OHS, Anchors defined as widgets of a
discourse system, and sources defined by systems such as those identified in Figure 1. We aren’t
focused on individual links but on ensembles of links.
Essential attributes of annotations as providing navigation and elaboration. These are annotations but
typically not free-form annotations.
Scholarly publishing standards that natively support a full range of multimedia applications and
simulations along with the interactive multimedia services.
REFERENCES
1. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature, 1987, A Proposal for More
Informative Abstracts of Clinical Articles, Annals of Internal Medicine, 106, 598-604.
2. Allen, Tables of contents for multimedia presentations.
3. Allen, 2011 DLib.
4. Allen, R.B., & Acheson, J., 2000, Browsing the Structure of Multimedia Stories, ACM/IEEE
Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), 11-18. DOI: 10.1145/336597.336615
5. Ausabel
6. Belkin, ASK
7. Bradford
8. Conklin, J. and Begeman, M. L., 1989, gIBIS: A Tool for all Reasons. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 40, 200–213.
9. de Waard, A., L. Breure, J. G. Kircz and H. van Oostendorp (2006). Modeling rhetoric in scientific
publications. International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences and Technologies,
InSciT2006, Merida, Spain.
10. Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Gomez, L.M., Landauer, T.K., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, C.C., 1989,
Formative Design Evaluation of Superbook. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (ACM TOIS),
7, 30-57. DOI: 10.1145/64789.64790
11. Grafton, A., 1999, The Footnote a Curious History, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
12. Grosz, B., & Sidner, C., 1986, Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational
Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
13. Halasz, F.G., 2001, Reflections on NoteCards: Seven Issues for the Next Generation of Hypermedia
Systems. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 25(3), 71-87. DOI: 10.1145/48511.48514
10
14. Hodge, G., 2000, Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries. Beyond Traditional
Authority Files. CLIR, Washington DC.
15. Kitsch, W. Comprehsnion.
16. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), 2008,
Functional
Requirements
for
Bibliographic
Records,
http://
www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf
17. Lagoze, C., and Van de Somple, H., Open Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange.
http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/primer
18. Lancaster, F.W., 2003, Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. Univ. of Illinois
Press, Champaign IL.
19. Li, H.L., What is a collection? Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 2000, 51,
1106-1113.
20. Library
of
Congress,
METS:
Multimedia
Encoding
and
Transmission
http://
www.loc.gov/standards/mets/
21. Maniez, J. & Maniez, D., Concevoir l'index d'un livre : histoire, actualité, perspectives. Paris,
ADBS Éditions, 2009,
22. Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A., 1988, Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of
Text Organization. Text, 8(3): p. 243-281.
23. Marshall, C.C., 1998, Toward an Ecology of Hypertext Annotation. ACM Hypertext 98, 40-49. DOI:
10.1145/276627.276632
24. Marshall, C.C., & Brush, A.J.B., 2002, From Personal to Shared Annotations. ACM SIGCHI Extended
Abstracts. DOI
25. Oren, E., Möller, K.H., Scerri,S., Handschuh, S., & Sintek, M., What are semantic annotations?
2006, Technical Report, DERI Galway.
26. Polanyi, L. Telling the American Story: A Structural and Cultural Analysis of Conversational
Storytelling, 1989, MIT Press. Cambridge MA.
27. Reich, S., Wiil, U.K., Nurnberg, P.J., Davis, H.C., Grønbæk, K., Anderson, K.M., Millard, D.E., &
Haake, J.M., 1999, Addressing Interoperability in Open Hypermedia: The Design of the Open
Hypermedia Protocol. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia.
28. Rimrott, A., The Discourse Structure of Research Article Abstracts – A Rhetorical Structure Theory
(RST) Analysis.
29. Rothkopf, E.Z., The Concept of Mathemagenic Activities. Review of Education Research, 40(3),
1970.
30. OAI-ORE
31. Schauer, H., From Elementary Discourse Units to Complex Ones. Proceedings of the SIGDIAL
workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. 2000.
32. Shotton, D.
33. Stauber, D.M., Facing the Text
34. Sutcliffe, ACM MM 1995.
35. Svenonius, E., 2000, The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. MIT Press,
Cambridge MA.
36. van Ossenbruggen, J., Hardman, L., & Rutledge, L., 2002, Hypermedia and the Semantic Web: A
Research Agenda, Journal of Digital Information, 3(1). http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/
article/viewArticle/78/77