Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 3–26 | Cite as

What is text, really?

  • Steven J. DeRose
  • David G. Durand
  • Elli Mylonas
  • Allen H. Renear


THE WAY IN WHICH TEXT IS represented on a computer affects the kinds of uses to which it can be put by its creator and by subsequent users. The electronic document model currently in use is impoverished and restrictive. The authors argue that text is best represented as an ordered hierarchy of content object (OHCO), because that is what text really is. This model conforms with emerging standards such as SGML and contains within it advantages for the writer, publisher, and researcher. The authors then describe how the hierarchical model can allow future use and reuse of the document as a database, hypertext, or network.


Text Processing Word Processor Content Object Document Type Definition Style Sheet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Association of American Publishers. (1986).Reference manual for markup of electronic manuscripts.Google Scholar
  2. Barnard, D.T., Fraser, A. and Logan, G. (1988). Generalized markup for literary text.Literary and Linguistic Computing. 13:(11), pp. 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, D. (1989). Why use SGML?Electronic Publishing. 2:(1), pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  4. Bryan, M. (1988).The author’s guide to SGML. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Author/Editor. (1989). SoftQuad Author/Editor, version 1.1. Toronto.Google Scholar
  6. Coombs, J., Renear, A. and DeRose, S.J. (1987). Markup systems and the future of scholarly text processing.Communications of the ACM 30 (11), 933–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeRose, S.J. (1989).CDWord tutorial. Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary.Google Scholar
  8. Frisse, M. (1989). Searching for information in a hypertext medical handbook.Hypertext ’87 Proceedings. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1987. New York: ACM. 57–66.Google Scholar
  9. Goldfarb, C.F. (1981). A generalized approach to document markup.Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN-SIGOA Symposium on Text Manipulation (Portland, Oregon, 1981). pp. 68–73. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Toloboff, V. (1986). Trends and standards in document representation. In J.C. Van Vliet (Ed.),Text Processing and Document Manipulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 107–124.Google Scholar
  11. ISO (1986).Information Processing— Text and Office Systems — Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). ISO 8879.Google Scholar
  12. Prusky, J. (1978).FRESS Resource Manual. Brown University.Google Scholar
  13. University of Chicago (1988).The Chicago Guide to Preparing Electronic Manuscripts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Weissman, R. (1990).Data liberation, or, Goals for a next generation software application architecture. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. DeRose
    • 1
  • David G. Durand
    • 2
  • Elli Mylonas
    • 3
  • Allen H. Renear
    • 4
  1. 1.praXisUSA
  2. 2.Brandeis UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Harvard UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Brown UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations