The Human Art of Encoding: Markup as Documentary Practice

  • Paul ScifleetEmail author
  • Susan P. WilliamsEmail author
  • Creagh ColeEmail author

This paper describes the Markup Analysis Project, a research initiative of the Information Policy and Practice Research Group at the University of Sydney to investigate frameworks for understanding the complex interactions evident in digital document development. Although markup languages are now widely deployed to identify and define the structural and contextual characteristics of electronic documents, to date, very little work has been undertaken to evaluate how the encoded elements of a markup language are being used by human authors and systems developers in practice. Our study addresses this by reviewing the literature of the field in search for common threads that will support a framework for a practice oriented view. We conclude that a clear understanding of digital representation as a documentary practice is absent from mainstream considerations digital document development and make recommendations for its inclusion.


Markup Language Enterprise Resource Planning System Document Type Definition Digital Document Electronic Text 
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. 1.
    Carr, E.H.: What is history? 2nd edition. Penguin Books, London UK. (1961)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckland, M: What is a “ document”? J. Am Soc Inf Sci 48(9), 804–809 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briet, S.: Qu ' est-ce que la documentation? EDIT, Paris (1951)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Day R.E., Martinet, L. and Anghelescu, H.G.B. What is Documentation? English Translation of the Classic French Text. Scarecrow Press, Lanham MD, (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lubetsky, S.: Bibliographic Dimensions in Information Control. Institute of Library research, University of California, Los Angeles. California, USA (1968)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowker, G.C. and Starr, S.L.: Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kent, W.: Data and Reality. 2nd edition. 1st Books Library, Bloomington, IN (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cole, C. and Scifleet, P.: In the Philosophy Room: Australian Realism and Digital Content Development. Literary and Linguistic Computing. 21(2), 15–167 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, B. : Textual deference. Amercian Philosophical Quarterly, 28, 1–13 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sperberg-McQueen, C. M.: Classification and its Structures. In Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (eds). A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwells, Malden, MA (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 17 May 2001 (2001)
  12. 12.
    12 Dubin, D., Huitfield, C., Renear, A. and Sperberg-McQueen C. M. XML Semantics and Digital Libraries. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM, Houston, Texas. pp.303–305 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morse, Emile L.: Evaluation Methodologies for Information Management Systems. D-Lib Magazine. 8,9 (2002).
  14. 14.
    Sperberg-MacQueen. C.M. and Burnard, L.: Guidelines for Electronic text Encoding and Interchange. The TEI Consortium (2004)
  15. 15.
    Debreceny, R. and Gray G.L.: The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. 2, 47–74, (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Renear, A.: Out of Praxis: three (Meta) theories of textuality. In Sutherland, K. (ed), Electronic Text: Investigations in Method and Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford 107–126 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knorr-Cetina, K.: Objectual practice. In Schatski, T. R., Schatski, Knorr-Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge. London, UK: (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Royce, W.W.: Managing the development of large software systems Proceeding of IEEE, WESCON, August, 1–9, (1970)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Markus, L M., Majchak A., Grasser, L.: A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179–212, (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber, R.P.: Basic Content Analysis. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Newbury Park CA. (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woodruff, A., Aoki, P.M. Brewer, E., Gauthier, P. and Rowe, L.A.: An Investigation of Documents from the World Wide Web. Computer Science Division — EECS University of Berkeley.
  22. 22.
    Zhang, J., and Jastram, I:. A study of metadata element co-occurrence. Online Information Review 30(4),428–453 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Information Systems, Faculty of Economics & BusinessThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia.
  2. 2.School of Philosophical and Historical EnquiryThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations