Patent Application
20060282762
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to document review and in particular to collaborative document review.
2. Brief Description of Related Developments
Document review processes utilized today generally suffer from a number of key problem areas including, for example, redundant reviewing and reporting, issue tracking, error logging, missing context, feedback conflicts, and approval collection.
Redundant reviewing and reporting typically occurs when a document is put out for review and multiple reviewers are asked to review the same sections of text. In many cases, the reviewers will identify the same issues in the text without knowledge of each other's activities and comments. Reporting documentation issues can be expensive, as the time required to formulate thoughts, fact-check corrections, provide alternate wording, and physically report the comment can quickly add up. Redundant reporting can involve a substantial waste of time affecting both the reviewers and the document owner(s).
It can also be very difficult for a reviewer to track the issues and feedback provided on a document, for two basic reasons. First, there is no good mechanism to track when feedback is incorporated into a subsequent version of the document. A reviewer often does not know whether it is necessary to re-report the issue in the subsequent version or simply wait for a later version of the document. Second, even if the feedback has been incorporated, the reviewer is usually forced to cross-reference their own feedback against the new document in order to find and validate the modification or “fix”. This is a very time-consuming endeavor, often leading to the reality that many reviewers do not validate relevant fixes.
Also, issues in a document, and the corresponding feedback, can often be taken out of context. Reviewers would often prefer to print out a piece of documentation and hand-write comments in the margins adjacent to the relevant text. However, the shortcomings of this approach (e.g. it requires physically delivering a copy of the document to the writer and does not facilitate sharing or tracking of feedback) sometimes discourages this type of review. Reviewers may enumerate comments in a separate document. These alternative methods take the comment away from its relevant context.
Additionally, feedback conflicts can occur between different reviewers. Since reviewers cannot easily or readily see the comments made by earlier reviewers, they provide their own feedback on a particular issue, which may or may not concur with earlier comments. Whether the reviewer(s) feedback conflicts as a result of differing opinions or simply miscommunication, it is usually left to the writer (also referred to herein as the “document owner”) or individual responsible for the overall review to sort out the various feedback inputs and comments. Resolving review comment conflicts can be difficult and time consuming. While it is often preferable for the reviewers to resolve the conflict between and among themselves, there is no good mechanism to facilitate this type of interaction.
Furthermore, approval collection can be difficult when dealing with a plurality of reviewers. It is often a challenge for the document owner(s) to secure meaningful approvals from each of their reviewers. Reviewers may sometimes be negligent in returning an approval or disapproval, or even give an approval without having performed an adequate review. With a plurality of reviewers, it can be difficult to centrally track approvals and review comments. A reviewer may be more inclined to perform a quality review and give a more honest approval if their comments and sign-off are easily viewable by the team and document owner.
Solving these issues demands a collaborative application that enables reviewers to put reviews directly into context of the version of the document under review and to be able track those revisions and reviews easily, even as the content of a document changes.
The present invention is directed to collaborative document review. In one embodiment, the method includes creating a review version of an original document and storing the review document in a location that is simultaneously accessible by more than one reviewer, where each reviewer might be in a different location. Each reviewer is able to review at least one section of the review document and annotate, or comment on, the selected section of the review document. Once the annotation is made, the annotation can be posted and be immediately visible to each reviewer. Each reviewer can also provide further comment on any annotation. Annotations made in an earlier version of the review document are retained and can be carried over into subsequent versions of the review document.
In another aspect, the present invention is directed to web-based document review. In one embodiment the method comprises accessing a document to be reviewed through a web-accessible application, selecting a section of the document to comment on, entering a comment into an annotation field, and posting the annotation field wherein the comment is immediately and simultaneously visible and accessible to any other reviewer of the document.
The foregoing aspects and other features of the present invention are explained in the following description, taken in connection with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Referring to
The present invention generally provides for web-based or server based collaborative document review. Reviewers are able to review a document simultaneously and collaboratively, even though each reviewer may be located remotely from another reviewer or the document owner. As a reviewer makes comments on a particular section or portion of the document, the comments, also referred to herein as “annotations” are added or inserted directly into the context of the document under review. The annotations can be immediately visible, in context, to all participants of the review. Each reviewer can respond to any particular annotation with an additional comment that will also be posted. As the document review process continues and a document is modified, the annotations can be carried over into a subsequent version of the document. In this fashion, the present invention allows the document owner to generate a revised document without having to address each comment or all of the “feedback” on the prior document, in the next revision.
Referring to
When a document is set to be reviewed, a review copy 150 of the original document 140 is created and uploaded, for example, to a web site or uniform resource locator (“URL”) address. To access the review copy 150 of the document, any one of the reviewers 120 can go to the URL and view the web page that includes the review document 150. Each reviewer can review and annotate the review copy 150, simultaneously. All the reviewer(s) 120 needs to access the review document 150 is a standard web browser application. In this embodiment, client software is not required to access and annotate the review document 150. The annotations, marked as 152 and 154, to the document 150 are written to a database in for example, the server 110. The original document 140 can be stored on an origin server. As shown in
In order to annotate, comment on or suggest a change to a section of the review document 150, the reviewer 120, selects a portion or section of the document 150 to annotate. For example, referring to
The section 202 includes a number of textual sentences and paragraphs. Generally, these are referred to as “sections” herein. In alternate embodiments, the section 202 could include any suitable content that can be reviewed. In order to annotate a section of the document, the reviewer positions a cursor, or other pointing device, at or near a desired location within the section 202. The reviewer can then select a comment or annotation location, by for example, “clicking” a mouse or other cursor type device. Once selected, an annotation box 210 could be displayed on the screen area of the particular display to indicate that the annotation selection option has been activated. In alternate embodiments, any suitable indicator can be utilized to indicate to the reviewer that the annotation function has been activated. A comment or annotation is generally a textual note made in reference to a particular section of the target, or review document. A user generally creates a comment via the embedded view of a review.
As shown in
Once the comment 212 is entered, the reviewer can activate or select “Post” 218 to post the annotation so that it is displayed in context with the document under review and is made available to all of the other reviewers. Once the annotation 212 is “posted” an icon 216 is shown at or near the location of the annotated section. As shown in
A reviewer desiring to view the annotation associated with the icon can select the icon 216. Once the icon 216 is selected, the annotation screen or box 210 will be displayed with the annotation line 212, together with any other comments made in connection with the annotation. For example, as shown in
Similarly, the reviewer “mrubino” in
In the event that another reviewer posts another annotation, or responds to a prior annotation, that comment can be immediately seen after it is posted by the other reviewer.
The icons 216 and 226 shown in
Although the icons 216 and 226 in
In one embodiment, the icons representing an annotation could include a specific indicator of the status or priority of a particular annotation. For example, referring to
For example, in one embodiment, a status assigned to a push pin, or annotation icon, could include, Open, Working, Review, or Closed. “Open” indicates a new annotation, “Working” indicates someone is working on an issue associated with the annotation, “Review” indicates that the issue is resolved but other must concur before the issue can be considered closed, while “Closed” indicates that the annotation has been reviewed, accepted or rejected. Each status can be represented by a different color, pattern or even a different icon. The colors, shapes, patterns, icons and change possibilities are only limited by the different status possibilities of each annotation. The priority of the annotation could also be represented by a color or symbol. In one embodiment, the symbol or type of icon might be symbolic of the annotation status, priority or other information. Generally, any suitable icon or representation can be used.
For review purposes, a list of annotations can be generated that includes the annotation number or identifier and the corresponding comments and other information.
The annotations shown in
Referring to
After the author reviews all the comments and makes any desired changes, the author can “close” the annotation 314. The “push pin” or other icon or image representation on the closed annotation could then be removed from the view. In some instances it may be desireable for a user to see a “closed” annotation. Therefore, the user can choose whether “closed” annotations are displayed or removed from the display.
The author can decide whether to review 316 any other annotations that may not have yet been reviewed. Alternatively, the author can revise the document if needed and resubmit 320 a new revision to the reviewers for further review, if the review is not complete 318. It is noted that any annotations that were not closed 314 by the author in the prior review, will be carried over into the subsequent revision that is posted 320. If all the annotations are closed out and the review is complete, the review can be considered complete 322. If other annotations remain to be reviewed, the process can return back to step 310.
Generally, all comments belong to a single review. The annotations or comments to a document are stored together with their anchor data. Anchor data is technical data that facilitates the association of the comment with the related section of the target document. The anchor data enable the annotations to be attached back to the corresponding content even if the content of the document has changed or moved. One example of a method and system for matching text at an expected location is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. ______, filed on ______, 2005 entitled “FUZZY MAATCHING OF TEXT AT AN EXPECTED LOCATION”, commonly owned by the assignee of the instant application, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
For example, in some instances, as an author is reviewing an annotation, the author might also make corresponding changes to the text, by adding or deleting text. The “anchor data” that is associated with an annotation, is generally logged in a database and points to a specific location in the document. However, if the text of the document changes, the actual location of the annotation may also change. This change might not be reflected in the database and the annotation icon will not necessarily correspond to the section of text to which it was originally associated. It is a feature of the present invention to reposition an annotation to its corresponding location in the text of the document, if the text of the document changes.
The positioning and repositioning of an annotation in a document generally comprises computing a signature for each section of the text, and comparing the computed signatures to the original signature of the section of text to which the annotation belongs. If an exact match is found that is near an expected location of the annotation, the location of the exact match becomes the new location for the annotation. However, if an exact match cannot be located, the next best match is sought that is nearest to the expected location of the annotation. The section of the changed document that is close enough in signature and close enough in distance to the expected location of the annotation, becomes the new anchoring point for the annotation.
If the change to the document is too extensive and a close match cannot be identified, in one embodiment the annotation icon can be relocated to a document annotation section within the frame of the document page.
The present invention allows text in a document to be located even if other text is added or deleted from the document. In one embodiment this includes creating a signature for the text that needs to be matched and a signature for each section of text in the document being searched. In one embodiment, a signature can be made up of, for example, 28 elements, one for each letter of the alphabet, one for any numeric character and one for any separator (e.g. space, tab). In alternate embodiments, the signature can be made up of any suitable number of elements. For example, referring to
The moving of an annotation, for example, in a cut and paste operation, discards the old signature and takes the signature of the section to where it is moved. The annotation is re-applied and re-anchored. The anchoring includes the signature of the section to which the annotation is anchored as well as the location of the section where the annotation is expected to be.
Referring again to
In another embodiment, an annotation could become the source of an online, live discussion, with comments as threads, or hierarchical threading. Similarly, in one embodiment, multiple discussions within the content of annotations could be taking place at the same time. For example, referring to
In one embodiment, an annotation could include an option enabling a comment to be assigned to a particular individual or individuals for action or response. When the assign option is selected, an email notification can be provided to the assignee advising of the assignment.
Notes and annotations can also be arranged as a list for review, including lists for “orphaned” annotations, or annotations for which a close match cannot be determined. A “close match” can be a factor of the correspondence in signatures and the proximity in distance of the close match to the expected location of the text. A close match might be a section of text that has an identical signature to the text to be matched that is nearest to the expected location of the text. A close match might also include a section of text that has a signature that is comparatively similar to the signature of the text to be matched and is nearest to the expected location of the text. When a close match is not found the search for the section of text to be matched unsuccessful and the annotation is considered “orphaned” by the application. This can be an appropriate state for text that has been altered beyond recognition.
Referring to
If the reviewer selects to annotate, an annotation box 410 displayed that allows the reviewer to enter comment text. The annotation box 410 can include for example, a section 412 for a subject, a section 414 for assigning the comment to another party for action, a section or box 418 to indicate the status of the comment, and a section 420 in which the review can enter the comment. In alternate embodiments attributes other than including subject, assignee, status or comment can be included. For example, one attribute could be “priority” information.
Once the reviewer is finished entering the comment, the reviewer can post 422 the comment. Upon posting the comment, an annotation icon 424 will appear in context of the document.
The present invention may also include software and computer programs incorporating the process steps and instructions described above that are executed in different computers. In the preferred embodiment, the computers are connected to the Internet.
Computer systems 502 and 504 may also include a microprocessor for executing stored programs. Computer 502 may include a data storage device 508 on its program storage device for the storage of information and data. The computer program or software incorporating the processes and method steps incorporating features of the present invention may be stored in one or more computers 502 and 504 on an otherwise conventional program storage device. In one embodiment, computers 502 and 504 may include a user interface 510, and a display interface 512 from which features of the present invention can be accessed. The display interface 512 and user interface 510 could be a single interface or comprise separate components and systems. The user interface 508 and the display interface 512 can be adapted to allow the input of queries and commands to the system, as well as present the results of the commands and queries.
The present invention provides for collaborative document review utilizing for example, a web-based browser application, that allows for real-time review of a document by multiple reviewers, where comments and feedback can be seen and addressed be each reviewer prior to completion of the review. The document owner can thus collect complete review information in a single review process. Annotations to the document are immediately visible to each reviewer for further action and comment. As a document is revised by the owner, annotations made in an earlier version of the review document that are not closed out are retained, and can be carried over into subsequent versions of the review document.
It should be understood that the foregoing description is only illustrative of the invention. Various alternatives and modifications can be devised by those skilled in the art without departing from the invention. Accordingly, the present invention is intended to embrace all such alternatives, modifications and variances which fall within the scope of the appended claims.
