A Collaborative Scholarly Annotation System for Dynamic Web Documents – A Literary Case Study

  • Anna Gerber
  • Andrew Hyland
  • Jane Hunter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6102)


This paper describes ongoing work within the Aus-e-Lit project at the University of Queensland to provide collaborative annotation tools for Australian Literary Scholars. It describes our implementation of an annotation framework to facilitate collaboration and sharing of annotations within research sub-communities. Using the annotation system, scholars can collaboratively select web resources and attach different types of annotations (comments, notes, queries, tags and metadata), which can be harvested to enrich the AustLit collection. We describe how rich semantic descriptions can be added to the constantly changing AustLit collection through a set of interoperable annotation tools based on the Open Annotations Collaboration (OAC) model. RDFa enables scholars to semantically annotate dynamic web pages and contribute typed metadata about the IFLA FRBR entities represented within the AustLit collection. We also describe how the OAC model can be used in combination with OAI-ORE to produce scholarly digital editions, and compare this approach with existing scholarly annotation approaches.


Annotation Interoperability Scholarly Editions Ontology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    AustLit: The Australian Literature Resource, http://austlit.edu.au
  3. 3.
    Kilner, K.: The AustLit Gateway and Scholarly Bibliography: A Specialist Implementation of the FRBR. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39(3/4) (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hunter, J., Khan, I., Gerber, A.: HarVANA - Harvesting Community Tags to Enrich Collection Metadata, JCDL, PA, USA, June 16 – 20, pp. 147–156 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boot, P.: Mesotext. Digitised Emblems, Modelled Annotations and Humanities Scholarship. Pallas Proefschriften, Amsterdam. PhD Thesis (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml
  7. 7.
    Banski, P., Przepiorkowski, A.: Stand-off TEI Annotation: the Case of the National Corpus of Polish. In: ACL-IJCNLP LAW III, Singapore, August 6 –7 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Open Annotations Collaboration, http://www.openannotation.org/
  9. 9.
    W3C Annotea Project, http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/
  10. 10.
    Hemminger, B.: NeoNote. Suggestions for a Global Shared Scholarly Annotation System. D-Lib Magazine (May/June 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Gerber, A., Hunter, J.: LORE: A Compound Object Authoring and Publishing Tool for the Australian Literature Studies Community. In: Buchanan, G., Masoodian, M., Cunningham, S.J. (eds.) ICADL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5362, pp. 246–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chernich, R., Crawley, S., Hunter, J.: Universal Collaborative Annotations with Thin Clients - Supporting User Feedback to the Atlas of Living Australia, eResearch Australasia, Sydney, Australia, November 13 – 15 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Furuta, R., Urbina, E.: On the Characteristics of Scholarly Annotations. In: Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, MD, USA, pp. 78–79 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hunter, J.: Collaborative Semantic Tagging and Annotation Systems. In: Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. American Society for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Gerber
    • 1
  • Andrew Hyland
    • 1
  • Jane Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of QueenslandSt. Lucia, QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations