Systems and methods for informational document review, display and validation

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11263390
  • Patent Number
    11,263,390
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, January 8, 2020
    5 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, March 1, 2022
    2 years ago
  • CPC
    • G06F40/166
    • G06F40/197
  • Field of Search
    • CPC
    • G06F40/166
  • International Classifications
    • G06F40/166
    • G06F40/197
Abstract
Systems, methods, and media for controlling the review of documents. Methods may include receiving a request to review a document, responsive to the request, retrieving the document, the document including source content in an extensible markup language format, the document having a read-only access file permission, converting the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable, receiving a modification of the source content of the document, incorporating the modification of the source content into the document to create a modified document, and automatically providing the modified document in a displayable format via the web-based interface.
Description
FIELD OF THE TECHNOLOGY

The present technology relates generally to controlling the review of documents, and more specifically, but not by way of limitation, to systems, methods, and media for controlling the review of a document, for example, within a collaborative document review environment.


BACKGROUND

Informational documents are often created by document authors for a variety of purposes, such as explication of technical information (e.g., user guides, F.A.Q.s, and so forth). The creation of informational documents is often an iterative and review-intensive process. In many instances, the informational document author(s) may create informational documents in a particular format such as portable document format, a word processing format, or other commonly utilized informational document format.


SUMMARY OF THE TECHNOLOGY

According to some embodiments, the present technology is directed to methods for controlling the review of a document. The methods may include: (a) receiving a request to review a document; (b) responsive to the request, retrieving the document, the document having a read-only access file permission; (c) converting the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable; (d) receiving a modification of the source content of the document; and (e) incorporating the modification of the source content into the document to create a modified document.


According to additional embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to systems for controlling the review of a document that may include: (a) a memory for storing executable instructions for controlling review of a document; and (b) a processor configured to execute the instructions, the instructions including: (i) a display module that (1) receives requests to review documents that retrieves the document upon the web-based interface receiving a request to review a document, the document including source content in an extensible markup language format, the document having a read-only access file permission and (2) converts the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable; and (ii) a review module communicatively coupled with the display module that (1) receives a modification of the source content of the document; and (2) incorporates the modification of the source content into the document to create a modified document.


According to other embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to non-transitory computer readable storage media having a computer program embodied thereon, the computer program executable by a processor in a computing system to perform a method for controlling review of a document, the method comprising: (a) receiving a request to review a document; (b) responsive to the request, retrieving the document, the document having a read-only access file permission; (c) converting the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable; (d) receiving a modification of the source content of the document; and (e) incorporating the modification of the source content into the document to create a modified document.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary architecture of a system for controlling the review of a document. The system may be utilized to practice aspects of the present technology.



FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary review platform resident within a cloud-based computing system.



FIG. 3 is an exemplary flowchart of a method for controlling the review of a document.



FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary computing system that may be utilized to practice aspects of the present disclosure.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

While this technology is susceptible of embodiment in many different forms, there is shown in the drawings and will herein be described in detail several specific embodiments with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as an exemplification of the principles of the technology and is not intended to limit the technology to the embodiments illustrated.


Unfortunately, document reviewers (those that are tasked with reviewing and modifying these informational documents) may utilize one or more different document rendering and/or editing programs relative to the document author(s) and/or one another. As such, the review process for informational documents becomes cumbersome, as the informational documents must be converted into a plurality of formats. Additionally, some document rendering programs only allow the end user to view, but not modify the informational document. Therefore, any modification to the informational document must be communicated via a program or process external to those utilized to create the informational document. For example, document reviewers often print out a hard copy of the informational document and interlineate or annotate the informational document. The document reviewer must then provide the interlineated document back to the author(s), where the interlineated information can be incorporated into the document.


This process is only further complicated by a collaborative review process where multiple reviewers independently critique or modify the informational documents. Common problems with collaborative review processes stem from many sources. For example, each of the reviewers may not be aware of the modifications to the informational document being created by the other reviewers, leading to duplicative or confusing modifications to the informational content. Additionally, document author(s) may need to review a plurality of versions of the informational document before they can determine if the modifications are potentially erroneous. These time-consuming and cumbersome steps could be eliminated with the use of a centralized and controlled document review process, as described herein


Generally speaking, systems and methods provided herein may be configured to control the review of a document. More specifically, systems and methods provided herein may be configured to provide a controlled, collaborative environment for creating, modifying, and reviewing informational documents. According to some embodiments, systems, methods, and media provided herein may be adapted to control the modification of documents within a collaborative review environment.


The systems may be implemented within a cloud-based computing environment and may include a common web-based interface. Individual client nodes may interact with the systems via the web-based interface utilizing a web browser application. In some applications the system includes a review platform having an extensible language markup (“XML”) editor that allows individual or multiple client nodes to modify the source content of informational documents.


It will be understood that while some of the embodiments described herein may contemplate the utilization of XML format documents or applications configured to edit or display XML format documents, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that additional types of document formats (e.g., .pdf, .doc, .txt, .html, .aspx, .xls, and so forth) may also likewise be utilized in accordance with the present technology.


Broadly speaking, the review platform may include a what you see is what you get (“WYSIWYG”) web-based interface and XML editor that runs in the web browser of a client node, such as an end user computing system. The XML editor allows document reviewers to modify (e.g., edit, save, delete) the source content of informational documents. These informational documents are stored in XML format and may be rendered to display the source content included in the XML structure.


The XML editor provides the document reviewer with an intuitive interface with which to edit the source content of the informational document without requiring document reviewers to understand XML formatting or XML schemas. Therefore, the XML editor may act similarly to commonly utilized word processing applications. Stated otherwise, the XML editor may provide a centralized and easily accessible environment that allows document authors and reviewers to co-own, create, edit, review, and contribute to the creation of informational documents.


The XML editor may also be configured to apply XML schemas or extensible language markup schema definition (“XSD”) to the modified source content to ensure that the modifications conform to the XML schema of the document, ensuring that the informational document remains consistently formatted for publishing.


As modifications are received and checked against the XSD, the modified source content may be displayed as it would look if the modified document were to be published as-is. The modifications may be tracked by including them as tentative changes (subject to third party approval), making the modifications visually distinct from the original source content, for example, by coloring, underlining, or other suitable methods. Therefore, modifications to source content may be easily apprehended by other document reviewers or the content author.


In some embodiments, modifications to informational documents may be subject to collaborative review. For example, one or more client nodes may critique the modifications proposed by other client nodes before the modifications are incorporated into the source content of the informational document. In some embodiments, the review platform may utilize collaborative processes such as crowdsourcing to improve and refine the source content of informational documents based upon the collective knowledge of consumers or other end users.


Systems and methods provided herein may substantially reduce the need to convert informational documents into a plurality of document formats (because client nodes may utilize a plurality of different document editing and viewing applications) as the centralized web-based XML editor provides the informational documents in a viewable/editable format that is rendered in the web browser of the client node. Therefore, the review platform may not be constrained by the formatting limitations of third party word processing or document viewing applications or programs.


Referring now to FIG. 1, an architectural diagram of an exemplary system for controlling review of a document is depicted. The system 100 is shown as including a cloud-based computing environment, hereinafter “cloud 105.” According to some embodiments, the cloud 105 may include a plurality of interconnected web servers 110a-n.


Individual client nodes 115 are shown communicatively coupled with the cloud 105 via a network 120. It will be understood that the network 120 may include a private or public network such as the Internet.


In general, a cloud-based computing environment is a resource that typically combines the computational power of a large grouping of processors (such as within servers 110a-n) and/or that combines the storage capacity of a large grouping of computer memories or storage devices. For example, systems that provide a cloud resource may be utilized exclusively by their owners, such as Google® or Yahoo!®; or such systems may be accessible to outside users who deploy applications within the computing infrastructure to obtain the benefit of large computational or storage resources.


The cloud may be formed, for example, by a network of web servers 110a-n with each server (or at least a plurality thereof) providing processor and/or storage resources. These servers may manage workloads provided by multiple users (e.g., cloud resource customers or other users). Typically, each user places workload demands upon the cloud that vary in real-time, sometimes dramatically. The nature and extent of these variations typically depends on the type of business associated with the user.


In some embodiments, the cloud 105 may be configured to provide centralized and controlled environments for creating, modifying, and reviewing informational documents.



FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary an authoring platform 200 that is communicatively coupled with a review platform 205 of the cloud 105. In some embodiments, the review platform 205 may include a web-based interface 210, a display module 215, a review module 220, and a validation module 225.


It is noteworthy that the review platform 205 may include additional modules, engines, or components, and still fall within the scope of the present technology. As used herein, the term “module” may also refer to any of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), an electronic circuit, a processor (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes one or more software or firmware programs, a combinational logic circuit, and/or other suitable components that provide the described functionality. In other embodiments, individual modules of the review platform 205 may include separately configured web servers.


The authoring platform 200 may provide an additional platform for document authors to manage, edit, and release content for publishing to the display module 215. As such, the authoring platform 200 may be communicatively coupled with a storage media 230 that receives and retains informational documents created by document authors.


It will be understood the informational documents stored within the storage media may have a read-only file access permission to prevent unwanted changes to the documents. Once documents are created and made available for review, content authors may notify document reviewers that one or more informational documents are available for review via electronic mail or other methods.


It is noteworthy that the timelines on which the reviews are opened and closed by content authors, and the type of document reviewer(s) who are allowed to perform various review functions may vary. For example, document authors may specify single day review periods, always open review periods, subject-matter experts from within engineering to the open community on the web, and so forth.


To review a document, document reviewers may communicatively couple to the review platform 205 via the web-based interface 210 utilizing a client node 115. The web-based interface 210 allows document reviewers to interact with and/or review informational documents. Document reviewers may select informational documents, or portions of informational documents to review via the web-based interface 210. Selecting informational content via the web-based interface 210 generates a request that is passed to the authoring platform 200.


The authoring platform 200 may then publish the informational document to the web-based interface via the display module 215. Next, the web browser of the client node 115 renders the source content of the informational document in a format that is perceivable to the document reviewer.


It is noteworthy that although the display module 215 and the review module 220 have been disclosed as being two separate modules, the inclusion of the web-based interface 210 ensures a tight integration of the functionalities of the two modules together. Therefore, when the document reviewer accesses a document via the web-based interface 210, the display module 215 and review module 220 work together in a seamless fashion to provide a review platform that resembles a conventional word processing application.


Additionally, the display module 215 may provide the document reviewer with powerful search capabilities. For example document reviewers may search for documents with simple searches to advance searches, or may search for specific content utilizing specific fields (e.g., image titles, and so forth). Additionally, the display module 215 may allow document authors to personalize their searches. For example, document reviewers may have the ability to filter down the searched documents based on a set of user-defined or otherwise provided criteria that allows the document reviewers to see only the documents they need.


Additionally, the display module 215 may function as a simple, easy-to-read, easy-to-navigate, and inter-linked search tool. In other embodiments, documents may be browsed by keywords, index terms, or other types of navigational structures. In some applications, the display module 215 may include graphic and media rich aids that make it easier for document reviewers to use, understand, and utilize the review platform 205.


The display module 215 receives the informational document from the authoring platform 200 in read-write access file permission such that modifications may be made to the informational document. Modifications to the document may be received by the review module 220 from input received via the web-based interface 210. According to some embodiments, the review module 220 may include an XML editor 240 that functions similarly to a word processing application. Document reviewers may utilize the XML editor 240 without need to learn the intricacies of the XML language or an appreciation of the XML structure or schema. Therefore, the informational content does not need to be converted into a suitable document format that may be different from the document format of the original informational document.


In some embodiments, the review module 220 may include a simple, easy-to-read, and easy-to-navigate modification form that appears substantially the same as the read-only version of the document. Similarly to the display module 215, the review module 220 (or XML editor 240) may include rich media and graphical aids that make it easier for an administrator or any other person tasked with configuring the system to understand and utilize the XML editor 240. Additionally, such individuals may be allowed to configure how the XML editor 240 behaves. For example, such individuals may configure the XML editor 240 such that hitting enter in a paragraph creates a new paragraph within the document. In another example, hitting enter in a list creates a new list item—but hitting enter twice may end the list and define the beginning of a new paragraph.


For example, if the original informational document is created in XML format, the system does not need to convert the XML format document into more commonly utilized document formats such as portable document format (“PDF”), document format (“DOC”), and so forth. Informational documents that are rendered by the web-based interface 210 may appear as a conventional word processing document instead of the more complicated and abstract native XML format that was utilized by the document author.


According to some embodiments, document reviewers may be provided document review templates that provide the document reviewer with a limited subset of review functionalities based upon the technical sophistication of individual document reviewers. For example, a document reviewer having very little knowledge of the technical aspects of XML content (such as, e.g., a marketing professional perhaps) may be provided with a very simplified XML editor that looks very similar to a word processing program. More sophisticated reviewers (such as, e.g., computer programmers) may be provided with a more technical and granular interface that allows the reviewer to comment or review pseudo-code, or even the underlying source code itself. As such, the web-based interface 210 may advantageously be tailored to the sophistication level of the end user.


Modifications made to the source content of the informational document via the XML editor 240 may be evaluated by a validation module 225 before the modifications are incorporated into the informational document. In some embodiments, the validation module 225 may apply a XSD schema to the modifications to determine if the modifications conform to the XSD schema. If the modifications do not conform to the XSD schema, they may be rejected. The review module 220 may generate a warning that is displayed to the document reviewer that the proposed modification does not conform to the XSD schema. One of ordinary skill in the art with the present disclosure before them will appreciate that many types of XML schema may likewise be utilized in accordance with the present technology.


Assuming the modifications conform to the XSD schema of the informational document, the modifications may be incorporated into the document to create a modified document. Once modifications have been incorporated into the original document, the modified document becomes the original document for purposes of a subsequent review. That is, the modified document may take the place of the original document. This process may happen iteratively as the document is further reviewed and modified over time.


In some embodiments the modifications may be saved temporarily as tentative changes. These tentative changes may be represented in a visually distinct manner relative to the original source content of the informational document. For example, the modifications may be underlined or colored such that they may be quickly and easily visually apprehended by a document reviewer. Tentative changes may be incorporated into the document upon approval, as discussed in greater detail herein.


In other embodiments, modifications are incorporated without further review. As such, upon a modification being incorporated into the document, the display module 215 may provide or “publish” the updated document to the web-based interface 210 such that the document reviewer may immediately or instantaneously review the modification. This instantaneous, or essentially instantaneous, feedback provides the document reviewer with a visual representation of the incorporation of a modification to the informational document. As such, the document reviewer may more easily appreciate the effect of a particular modification on the final published appearance of the informational document by reviewing the feedback.


It is envisioned that the document author may provide an informational document to a plurality of document reviewers. The document reviewers may collaboratively review the document, each independently (or collaboratively) providing modifications or commentary relative to the informational document.


In some applications, document reviewers may be the actual document consumer or end user. Document authors may publish the informational document for review by a plurality of end users in a collaborative review process that is often referred to as “crowdsourcing.” Rather than (or in addition to) utilizing resources within a company to review technical or informational documents, content authors may enlist the expertise of their customers to refine and improve the informational documents of the company. Because the end user may utilize the web-based interface 210 to provide commentary or review an informational document, web analytics may be gathered from the client device of the end user that communicatively couples with the web-based interface 210. These web analytics may be utilized to help the company or other entity to understand the demographics or interest of their end users, providing additional benefit to both the end user and the company or entity. Web analytics may be aggregated and evaluated according to methods such as those disclosed in a corresponding U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/037,273 filed on Feb. 28, 2011 and titled “Systems, Methods, and Media for Generating Analytical Data,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety including all references cited therein.


The web-based interface 210 may receive modifications from each of the plurality of document reviewers and may incorporate modifications to the document in different colors. Each color may be associated with a different document reviewer. Additionally, document reviewers may critique or comment on the modifications of other document reviewers. It will be understood that these types of review processes may be utilized to determine inconsistencies in informational documents, or may be utilized as a quality control process.


In some exemplary embodiments, consensus regarding modifications may be obtained from the plurality of document reviewers before the modifications may be incorporated into the document. In some instances, a subset of document reviewers may be utilized to filter or approve modifications. In other embodiments, document reviewers may be permitted to vote on the appropriateness of a modification before incorporation of the same into the document to create a modified document.


In short, the review platform 205 may provide mechanisms for dynamic document review processes that are controlled (only allowing a document to have its file access permission changed to read-write upon request from an approved document reviewer) and allows for collaborative review.


In other embodiments, document authors may approve or reject modifications to the document. In these embodiments, the document author may utilize the web-based interface 210 and select one or more of the modifications. The document author may accept or reject the modifications. Accepted modifications may be incorporated into the document to create a modified document.


It will be understood that document reviewers may be granted privileges within the review platform 205 by the system administrators and/or document authors. These privileges may be determined by department (document authors v. engineers) or as a document review project moves through different stages. For example, such stages may include “open review” stages where engineers modify the source content, and “closed review” stages where only document authors may review and/or modify informational documents.


In some embodiments, the review platform 205 may include an analytics module 235 that may track the behavior of document reviewers to determine metrics such as informational documents with the highest number of modifications (connotes poorly authored documents or confusing source content), what types of modifications are being made to documents, how different communities of document reviewers modify documents, and so forth. Reports or other statistical data may be provided to content authors via the analytics module 235.


As stated previously, the review platform 205 may be adapted to associate modifications or commentary with individual document reviewers. As such, by clicking on (or otherwise selecting) the modification or comment, a document author (or other document reviewer) may determine information corresponding to the individual (or individuals) that provided the comment or modification. The information corresponding to the individual may include a name, an email address, social media identification, or other identifying information that allows the individual document reviewer to be contacted directly for more immediate feedback. Individual comments or modifications may be tagged with information that corresponds to the document reviewer that provided the commentary or modification.


In some applications, the review module 205 may be configured to retain a breadcrumb trail, thread, or other similar comment artifact of each change made to the informational document, or commentary relating to the document. An exemplary breadcrumb trail may include a navigation aid that visually portrays iterations of the document. For example, the dates of modifications may be listed in chronological order with a glyph (symbol) between adjacent dates. Historical information may assist the document author in creating documents that are more closely aligned with the interests or desires of the document consumer.


Document authors or document reviewers may be allowed to close individual comment threads or feedback loops to resolve particular issues relative to a document. As such, the analytics module 235 of the review platform 205 may also monitor the status of review, commentary, or critiques of documents to determine outstanding issues relative to a document (e.g., issues that have not been closed). For example, several document reviewers may have questioned the use of a particular phrase within a document. In some illustrative embodiments, if the content author has not responded to the commentary, it may be assumed that the document reviewer is not considering the commentary, or is not responding to issues in a timely manner. According to some embodiments, the analytics module 235 may generate graphs or charts of issues or critiques that have been opened, closed, reviewed, and so forth, within a particular period of time.


In summation, the flow of data begins when a request for a document is received by the review platform, namely by the display module 215. Documents corresponding to the request are obtained from the authoring platform 200 by the display module 215. Before the documents are communicated from the authoring platform 200 to the display module 215, the authoring platform 200 converts the document from read-only file access permission to read-write access file permission.


The display module communicates the document to the review platform 220. Modifications are received by, and incorporated into the document via the review platform 220. To be sure, modifications may include edits, comments, changes, or other similar data. The review platform 220 updates the document with the modifications to create a modified document. The review platform 220 then communicates the modified document back to the display module 215 where the modified document may be provided in a displayable format or communicated back to the authoring platform 200.


After receiving the modified document from the display module 215, the authoring platform 200 then converts the modified document back to read-only file access permission before storing in a storage media.


In keeping with some embodiments according to the present technology, FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary method 300 for controlling the review of a document. The method 300 may begin with a step 305 of a document author creating a document that is saved within a storage media. It will be understood that the document may be saved having a read-only file access permission to prevent unwanted changes to the document. It will further be understood that the document has a XML format, in this example, and includes source content that defines the subject matter of the document. Moreover, the document remains in XML format during each step of the method from storage to display to modification and finally back to storage. As such, this exemplary method advantageously allows for review and modification of documents without the need to convert the document into discrepant formats.


The method may include the step 310 of receiving a request to review a document from a client node via the web-based interface. The request may be generated from a document reviewer selecting a document, or a portion of a document.


Next, responsive to the request, the method may include the step 315 of retrieving the document from the storage media. It is noteworthy that the storage media may be communicatively coupled with (or reside within) a cloud-based computing system.


After retrieval, the method may include the step 320 of converting the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable, along with a step 325 of providing the document in a displayable format via a web-based interface.


The converting of the document to read-write access file permission functions similarly to opening a document in a word processing application, in some embodiments. Advantageously, the document reviewer may comment, edit, delete, add, or otherwise modify the source content of the document all without the need to understand the intricacies and code structure of the XML document format.


If the document reviewer modifies the document, the method may include a step 330 of receiving a modification of the source content of the document and a step 335 of incorporating the modification of the source content into the document to create a modified document.


Because the platform provided herein may utilize WYSIWYG processes for document review, the method 300 may include the step 340 of automatically providing the modified document in a displayable format via the web-based interface. Feedback or modifications to the document are made immediately available to the document reviewer. In some methods, modifications may be displayed in a visually distinct format by underlining and/or coloring the modifications to delineate them from the original source content of the document.


According to some embodiments, the method 300 may include a step 345 of reviewing modifications before the modified or reviewed document is converted back to read-only file access permission. The step 345 of reviewing modifications may be performed by the original document author, the document reviewer, a plurality of document reviewers, or via crowdsourcing. Reviewing modifications may include approving or rejecting modifications to the document, in whole or in part. It will be understood that the step 345 of reviewing modifications may occur before the step 335 of incorporating the modification of the source content into the document to create a modified document.


Once the modified document has been reviewed the method 300 may include a step 350 of converting the modified document back to read-only file access permission. The modified document may again be stored in the storage media associated with the cloud-based computing system.



FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary computing system 400 that may be used to implement an embodiment of the present technology. The computing system 400 of FIG. 4 includes one or more processors 410 and main memory 420. Main memory 420 stores, in part, instructions and data for execution by processor 410. Main memory 420 can store the executable code when the system 400 is in operation. The system 400 of FIG. 4 may further include a mass storage device 430, portable storage 440, output devices 450, user input devices 460, a graphics display 440, and other peripherals 480.


The components shown in FIG. 4 are depicted as being connected via a single bus 490. The components may be connected through one or more data transport means. Processor 410 and main memory 420 may be connected via a local microprocessor bus, and the mass storage device 430, peripherals 480, portable storage device 440, and display system 470 may be connected via one or more input/output (I/O) buses.


Mass storage device 430, which may be implemented with a magnetic disk drive or an optical disk drive, is a non-volatile storage device for storing data and instructions for use by processor 410. Mass storage device 430 can store the system software for implementing embodiments of the present technology for purposes of loading that software into main memory 420.


Portable storage device 440 operates in conjunction with a portable non-volatile storage media, such as a floppy disk, compact disk or Digital Video Disc, to input and output data and code to and from the computing system 400 of FIG. 4. The system software for implementing embodiments of the present technology may be stored on such a portable media and input to the computer system 400 via the portable storage device 440.


Input devices 460 provide a portion of a user interface. Input devices 460 may include an alphanumeric keypad, such as a keyboard, for inputting alphanumeric and other information, or a pointing device, such as a mouse, a trackball, stylus, or cursor direction keys. Additionally, the system 400 as shown in FIG. 4 includes output devices 450. Suitable output devices include speakers, printers, network interfaces, and monitors.


Display system 470 may include a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other suitable display device. Display system 470 receives textual and graphical information, and processes the information for output to the display device.


Peripherals 480 may include any type of computer support device to add additional functionality to the computer system. Peripherals 480 may include a modem or a router.


The components contained in the computer system 400 of FIG. 4 are those typically found in computer systems that may be suitable for use with embodiments of the present technology and are intended to represent a broad category of such computer components that are well known in the art. Thus, the computer system 400 of FIG. 4 can be a personal computer, hand held computing system, telephone, mobile computing system, workstation, server, minicomputer, mainframe computer, or any other computing system. The computer can also include different bus configurations, networked platforms, multi-processor platforms, etc. Various operating systems can be used including UNIX, Linux, Windows, Macintosh OS, Palm OS, and other suitable operating systems.


Some of the above-described functions may be composed of instructions that are stored on storage media (e.g., computer-readable media). The instructions may be retrieved and executed by the processor. Some examples of storage media are memory devices, tapes, disks, and the like. The instructions are operational when executed by the processor to direct the processor to operate in accord with the technology. Those skilled in the art are familiar with instructions, processor(s), and storage media.


It is noteworthy that any hardware platform suitable for performing the processing described herein is suitable for use with the technology. The terms “computer-readable storage media” and “computer-readable storage media” as used herein refer to any media or media that participate in providing instructions to a CPU for execution. Such media can take many forms, including, but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media and transmission media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as a fixed disk. Volatile media include dynamic memory, such as system RAM. Transmission media include coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, among others, including the wires that comprise one embodiment of a bus. Transmission media can also take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications. Common forms of computer-readable media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, a hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic media, a CD-ROM disk, digital video disc (DVD), any other optical media, any other physical media with patterns of marks or holes, a RAM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM, a FLASHEPROM, any other memory chip or data exchange adapter, a carrier wave, or any other media from which a computer can read.


Various forms of computer-readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to a CPU for execution. A bus carries the data to system RAM, from which a CPU retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by system RAM can optionally be stored on a fixed disk either before or after execution by a CPU.


It is noteworthy that various modules and engines may be located in different places in various embodiments. Modules and engines mentioned herein can be stored as software, firmware, hardware, as a combination, or in various other ways. It is contemplated that various modules and engines can be removed or included in other suitable locations besides those locations specifically disclosed herein. In various embodiments, additional modules and engines can be included in the exemplary embodiments described herein.


The above description is illustrative and not restrictive. Many variations of the technology will become apparent to those of skill in the art upon review of this disclosure. The scope of the technology should, therefore, be determined not with reference to the above description, but instead should be determined with reference to the appended claims along with their full scope of equivalents.

Claims
  • 1. A method for controlling review of a document, the method comprising: receiving a request to review a document;responsive to the request, retrieving the document, the document including source content in an extensible markup language format, the document having a read-only access file permission;converting the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable;receiving two or more modifications of the source content of the document from two or more users;obtaining a vote count from a subset of the two or more users who determine an appropriateness of the two or more modifications;incorporating the two or more modifications of the source content into the document to create a modified document based on the vote count;providing the modified document such that a document reviewer may immediately or instantaneously review the two or more modifications of the source content being incorporated into the document; andretaining at least one of a trail, thread, and comment artifact of each change made to the document.
  • 2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: evaluating the two or more modifications made to the source content of the document via an extensible markup language editor before the two or more modifications are incorporated into the document;applying an extensible markup language schema definition to the two or more modifications;rejecting the two or more modifications if the two or more modifications do not conform to the extensible markup language schema definition; andgenerating a warning that is displayed to the document reviewer if the two or more modifications do not conform to the extensible markup language schema definition.
  • 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the request is received via a web-based interface.
  • 4. The method according to claim 3, further comprising providing the document in a displayable format via the web-based interface.
  • 5. The method according to claim 4, wherein providing the document in a displayable format includes publishing the document as a web page accessible via a web-based interface.
  • 6. The method according to claim 1, further comprising automatically providing the modified document in a displayable format to a web-based interface, after the step of incorporating.
  • 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the two or more modifications of the source content is received via a web-based extensible markup language editor associated with a web-based interface.
  • 8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying the two or more modifications of the source content of the document as tentative changes until receiving permission to incorporate the two or more modifications, the tentative changes being visually distinctive from the source content.
  • 9. The method according to claim 8, wherein receiving permission includes: receiving feedback from a plurality of client nodes responsive to receiving the two or more modifications of the source content of the document; andat least one of approving and rejecting incorporation of the two or more modifications of the source content into the document based upon the feedback.
  • 10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising validating the received two or more modifications before the step of incorporating.
  • 11. The method according to claim 1, further comprising converting the modified document back to read-only access file permission and storing the modified document in a storage media.
  • 12. A system for controlling review of a document, the system comprising: a memory for storing executable instructions for controlling review of a document; anda processor configured to execute the instructions, the instructions including:a display module that (a) receives requests to review documents and that retrieves a document upon a web-based interface receiving a request to review the document, the document including source content in an extensible markup language format, the document having a read-only access file permission; (b) converts the document to read-write access file permission such that the source content is modifiable; and (c) provides the updated document to the web-based interface such that a document reviewer may immediately or instantaneously review two or more modifications of the source content being incorporated into the document from two or more users; anda review module communicatively coupled with the display module that (a) receives the two or more modifications of the source content of the document;(b) obtains a vote count from a subset of the two or more users who determine an appropriateness of the two or more modifications;(c) incorporates the two or more modifications of the source content into the document to create a modified document based on the vote count; and(d) retains at least one of a trail, thread, and comment artifact of each change made to the document;the review module further comprising a validation module that (a) evaluates the two or more modifications made to the source content of the document via an extensible markup language editor before the two or more modifications are incorporated into the document;(b) applies an extensible markup language schema definition to the two or more modifications;(c) rejects the two or more modifications if the two or more modifications do not conform to the extensible markup language schema definition; and(d) generates a warning that is displayed to the two or more document reviewer if the two or more modifications do not conform to the extensible markup language schema definition.
  • 13. The system according to claim 12, further comprising an authoring platform that publishes the document to the display module communicatively coupled to the authoring platform, the display module providing the source content as a web page via a web-based interface.
  • 14. The system according to claim 13, wherein the authoring platform is communicatively coupled with the review module, and the authoring platform receives the modified document from the review module and converts the modified document back to read-only file permission.
  • 15. The system according to claim 14, wherein the authoring platform stores the modified document in a storage media communicatively coupled with the authoring platform.
  • 16. The system according to claim 12, wherein the display module provides the modified document to the web-based interface as a web page.
  • 17. The system according to claim 12, wherein the review module further comprises a web-based extensible markup language editor.
  • 18. The system according to claim 17, wherein the web-based extensible markup language editor receives the two or more modifications of the source content from at least two of a plurality of client nodes via the web-based interface, wherein the web-based extensible markup language editor is associated with the web-based interface.
  • 19. The system according to claim 18, wherein the review module saves the two or more modifications of the source content of the document as tentative changes until the review module receives permission to incorporate the two or more modifications from the at least two of the plurality of client nodes, the tentative changes being visually distinctive from the source content, wherein the review module (a) receives feedback from a plurality of client nodes responsive to receiving two or more modifications of the source content of the document; and (b) at least one of permits and rejects incorporation of the two or more modifications of the source content into the document based upon the feedback.
  • 20. A method comprising: allowing modifications to a document by a first set of individuals during an open review stage of document review, wherein the modifications are determined by privileges assigned to the first set of individuals by one or more document authors;allowing modifications to the document during a closed review stage of the document review by only the one or more document authors; andgenerating a navigation aid illustrating the modifications, the modifications being listed in chronological order with glyphs between adjacent dates when the modifications occurred.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED DISCLOSURE

This U.S. Nonprovisional patent application is a continuation application of U.S. Nonprovisional patent application Ser. No. 15/938,288, filed Mar. 28, 2018, now granted U.S. Pat. No. 10,599,757 issued on Mar. 24, 2020, entitled “Systems, Methods and Media for Controlling the Review of a Document,” which in turn is a continuation application of U.S. Nonprovisional patent application Ser. No. 13/217,122, filed Aug. 24, 2011, now granted U.S. Pat. No. 9,984,054, issued on May 29, 2018, entitled “Web Interface Including the Review and Manipulation of a Web Document and Utilizing Permission Based Control.” This U.S. Nonprovisional patent application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/037,273 filed on Feb. 28, 2011, now granted U.S. Pat. No. 10,140,320, issued Nov. 27, 2018, and titled “Systems, Methods, and Media for Generating Analytical Data.” The disclosures of the aforementioned applications are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes, including all references and appendices cited therein.

US Referenced Citations (282)
Number Name Date Kind
D290952 Price Jul 1987 S
D291086 Price Jul 1987 S
4845658 Gifford Jul 1989 A
4916614 Kaji Apr 1990 A
4920499 Skeirik Apr 1990 A
5032979 Hecht et al. Jul 1991 A
5351189 Doi Sep 1994 A
5418717 Su et al. May 1995 A
5640575 Maruyama Jun 1997 A
5677835 Carbonell et al. Oct 1997 A
5708780 Levergood et al. Jan 1998 A
5715314 Payne et al. Feb 1998 A
5724424 Gifford Mar 1998 A
5768603 Brown et al. Jun 1998 A
5812776 Gifford Sep 1998 A
5873056 Liddy Feb 1999 A
5890177 Moody et al. Mar 1999 A
5909492 Payne et al. Jun 1999 A
5974372 Barnes Oct 1999 A
6014628 Kovarik, Jr. Jan 2000 A
6044344 Kanevsky Mar 2000 A
6049785 Gifford Apr 2000 A
6085162 Cherny Jul 2000 A
6195649 Gifford Feb 2001 B1
6199051 Gifford Mar 2001 B1
6205437 Gifford Mar 2001 B1
6212634 Geer et al. Apr 2001 B1
6279112 O'Toole, Jr. et al. Aug 2001 B1
6347316 Redpath Feb 2002 B1
6356865 Franz et al. Mar 2002 B1
6415257 Junqua Jul 2002 B1
6449599 Payne et al. Sep 2002 B1
6477524 Taskiran Nov 2002 B1
6490358 Geer et al. Dec 2002 B1
6490563 Hon Dec 2002 B2
6658627 Gallup Dec 2003 B1
6833848 Wolff et al. Dec 2004 B1
6865528 Huang Mar 2005 B1
6920419 Kitamura Jul 2005 B2
6976207 Rujan Dec 2005 B1
6990439 Xun Jan 2006 B2
7013264 Dolan Mar 2006 B2
7031908 Huang Apr 2006 B1
7050964 Menzes May 2006 B2
7089493 Hatori et al. Aug 2006 B2
7124092 O'toole, Jr. et al. Oct 2006 B2
7177792 Knight Feb 2007 B2
7191447 Ellis et al. Mar 2007 B1
7207005 Laktritz Apr 2007 B2
7209875 Quirk Apr 2007 B2
7219123 Fiechter et al. May 2007 B1
7242988 Hoffberg et al. Jul 2007 B1
7249013 Al-Onaizan Jul 2007 B2
7272639 Levergood et al. Sep 2007 B1
7295962 Marcu Nov 2007 B2
7295963 Richardson et al. Nov 2007 B2
7333927 Lee Feb 2008 B2
7340388 Soricut Mar 2008 B2
7353165 Zhou Apr 2008 B2
7369984 Fairweather May 2008 B2
7389222 Langmead Jun 2008 B1
7389223 Atkin Jun 2008 B2
7448040 Ellis et al. Nov 2008 B2
7454326 Marcu Nov 2008 B2
7509313 Colledge Mar 2009 B2
7516062 Chen et al. Apr 2009 B2
7533013 Marcu May 2009 B2
7620538 Marcu Nov 2009 B2
7620549 Di Cristo Nov 2009 B2
7624005 Koehn Nov 2009 B2
7668782 Reistad et al. Feb 2010 B1
7680647 Moore Mar 2010 B2
7716037 Precoda May 2010 B2
7734459 Menezes Jun 2010 B2
7739102 Bender Jun 2010 B2
7739286 Sethy Jun 2010 B2
7788087 Corston-Oliver Aug 2010 B2
7813918 Muslea Oct 2010 B2
7817251 Kimura Oct 2010 B2
7865358 Green Jan 2011 B2
7877251 Kumaran et al. Jan 2011 B2
7925493 Watanabe Apr 2011 B2
7945437 Mount et al. May 2011 B2
7966556 Bourdev Jun 2011 B1
7983896 Ross Jul 2011 B2
7983897 Chin Jul 2011 B2
8078450 Anisimovich et al. Dec 2011 B2
8135575 Dean Mar 2012 B1
8195447 Anismovich Jun 2012 B2
8214196 Yamada Jul 2012 B2
8239186 Chin Aug 2012 B2
8239207 Seligman Aug 2012 B2
8286185 Ellis et al. Oct 2012 B2
8296127 Marcu Oct 2012 B2
8352244 Gao et al. Jan 2013 B2
8364463 Miyamoto Jan 2013 B2
8386234 Uchimoto et al. Feb 2013 B2
8423346 Seo et al. Apr 2013 B2
8442812 Ehsani May 2013 B2
8464148 Wichary Jun 2013 B1
8521506 Lancaster et al. Aug 2013 B2
8527260 Best Sep 2013 B2
8548794 Koehn Oct 2013 B2
8548995 Curtiss Oct 2013 B1
8554591 Reistad et al. Oct 2013 B2
8594992 Kuhn et al. Nov 2013 B2
8600728 Knight Dec 2013 B2
8606900 Levergood et al. Dec 2013 B1
8612203 Foster Dec 2013 B2
8615388 Li Dec 2013 B2
8635327 Levergood et al. Jan 2014 B1
8635539 Young Jan 2014 B2
8666725 Och Mar 2014 B2
8676563 Soricut et al. Mar 2014 B2
8688454 Zheng Apr 2014 B2
8725496 Zhao May 2014 B2
8768686 Sarikaya et al. Jul 2014 B2
8775154 Clinchant Jul 2014 B2
8818790 He et al. Aug 2014 B2
8843359 Lauder Sep 2014 B2
8843482 Buriano et al. Sep 2014 B2
8862456 Krack et al. Oct 2014 B2
8886517 Soricut et al. Nov 2014 B2
8898052 Waibel Nov 2014 B2
8903707 Zhao Dec 2014 B2
8930176 Li Jan 2015 B2
8935148 Christ Jan 2015 B2
8935149 Zhang Jan 2015 B2
8935150 Christ Jan 2015 B2
8935706 Ellis et al. Jan 2015 B2
8972268 Waibel Mar 2015 B2
9026425 Nikoulina et al. May 2015 B2
9053202 Viswanadha Jun 2015 B2
9081762 Wu Jul 2015 B2
9141606 Marciano Sep 2015 B2
9176952 Aikawa Nov 2015 B2
9183192 Ruby, Jr. Nov 2015 B1
9183198 Shen et al. Nov 2015 B2
9201870 Jurach Dec 2015 B2
9208144 Abdulnasyrov Dec 2015 B1
9208509 Curran et al. Dec 2015 B1
9396184 Roy Jul 2016 B2
9465797 Ji Oct 2016 B2
9471563 Trese Oct 2016 B2
9519640 Perez Dec 2016 B2
9552355 Dymetman Jan 2017 B2
9600473 Leydon Mar 2017 B2
9613026 Hodson Apr 2017 B2
9916306 van den Oever et al. Mar 2018 B2
9984054 Trese et al. May 2018 B2
10140320 Trese et al. Nov 2018 B2
10599757 Trese et al. Mar 2020 B2
20010027460 Yamamoto et al. Oct 2001 A1
20010029455 Chin et al. Oct 2001 A1
20020042790 Nagahara Apr 2002 A1
20020046018 Marcu Apr 2002 A1
20020083103 Ballance Jun 2002 A1
20020124109 Brown Sep 2002 A1
20020165724 Blankesteijn Nov 2002 A1
20030009320 Furuta Jan 2003 A1
20030040899 Ogilvie Feb 2003 A1
20030046056 Godoy et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030200094 Gupta Oct 2003 A1
20040006585 Paulus et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040006744 Jones et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040034520 Langkilde-Geary Feb 2004 A1
20040044517 Palmquist Mar 2004 A1
20040064552 Chong et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040085354 Massand May 2004 A1
20040088647 Miller et al. May 2004 A1
20040167768 Travieso et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040205656 Reulein et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040255281 Imamura et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050055630 Scanlan Mar 2005 A1
20050171944 Palmquist Aug 2005 A1
20050177358 Melomed et al. Aug 2005 A1
20060031225 Palmeri et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060036448 Haynie et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060095526 Levergood et al. May 2006 A1
20060155716 Vasishth et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060184410 Ramamurthy et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060212270 Shiu et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060248084 Sack et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060282255 Lu Dec 2006 A1
20070033654 Wilson Feb 2007 A1
20070043553 Dolan Feb 2007 A1
20070073544 Millett et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070106633 Reiner May 2007 A1
20070112553 Jacobson May 2007 A1
20070112851 Tomic et al. May 2007 A1
20070136065 Chiu et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070136284 Cobb et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070188657 Basson et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070198245 Kamatani et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070211071 Slotznick et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070220010 Ertugrul Sep 2007 A1
20070294076 Shore et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070294080 Bangalore Dec 2007 A1
20080005670 Pravetz et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080040635 Larcheveque et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080077391 Chino et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080077392 Kamatani et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080086298 Anismovich Apr 2008 A1
20080088437 Aninye et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080102433 Rogers et al. May 2008 A1
20080109374 Levergood et al. May 2008 A1
20080133245 Proulx et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080134018 Kembel et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080154577 Kim Jun 2008 A1
20080159495 Dahan Jul 2008 A1
20080183758 Kennedy Jul 2008 A1
20080195372 Chin et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080201344 Levergood et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080208587 Ben-David et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080254430 Woolf et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080254433 Woolf et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080270142 Srinivasan et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080288240 D'Agostini et al. Nov 2008 A1
20090013162 Nandan et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090024595 Chen Jan 2009 A1
20090048821 Yam et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090094017 Chen et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090217196 Neff et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090222257 Sumita et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090240539 Slawson Sep 2009 A1
20090271283 Fosnacht et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090313005 Jaquinta Dec 2009 A1
20090327294 Bailor et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100057439 Ideuchi et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100057561 Gifford Mar 2010 A1
20100115284 Hahn et al. May 2010 A1
20100121630 Mende et al. May 2010 A1
20100161643 Gionis et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100179803 Sawaf Jul 2010 A1
20100185648 Chauhan et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100257457 De Goes Oct 2010 A1
20100313250 Chow Dec 2010 A1
20110029300 Marcu et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110066469 Kadosh Mar 2011 A1
20110077933 Miyamoto et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110082683 Soricut et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110082684 Soricut et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110087680 Murdock et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110097693 Crawford Apr 2011 A1
20110137636 Srihari et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110184722 Sneddon et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110209047 Olsen et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110225104 Soricut et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110282648 Sarikaya et al. Nov 2011 A1
20120005156 Grant et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120022852 Tregaskis Jan 2012 A1
20120078609 Chaturvedi et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120185759 Balinsky et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120221319 Trese Aug 2012 A1
20120221593 Trese et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120233543 Vagell et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120271828 Raghunath Oct 2012 A1
20120296914 Romanov et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120330990 Chen et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130055074 Trese et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130117376 Filman et al. May 2013 A1
20130144605 Brager et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130173247 Hodson Jul 2013 A1
20130325442 Dahlmeier Dec 2013 A1
20130325833 Guan et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130339847 Bartek et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140058718 Kunchukuttan Feb 2014 A1
20140114642 van den Oever et al. Apr 2014 A1
20140142917 D'Penha May 2014 A1
20140142918 Dotterer May 2014 A1
20140229257 Reistad et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140289702 McMahon et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140297252 Prasad et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140358519 Mirkin Dec 2014 A1
20140358524 Papula Dec 2014 A1
20140365201 Gao Dec 2014 A1
20150051896 Simard Feb 2015 A1
20150154180 Trese Jun 2015 A1
20150186362 Li Jul 2015 A1
20180217967 Trese et al. Aug 2018 A1
20180232346 Konnola et al. Aug 2018 A1
20190042607 Trese et al. Feb 2019 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (50)
Number Date Country
5240198 May 1998 AU
694367 Jul 1998 AU
5202299 Oct 1999 AU
2221506 Dec 1996 CA
102193914 Sep 2011 CN
102662935 Sep 2012 CN
102902667 Jan 2013 CN
69525374 Aug 2002 DE
69431306 May 2003 DE
69633564 Nov 2005 DE
0803103 Oct 1997 EP
0830774 Mar 1998 EP
1128301 Aug 2001 EP
1128302 Aug 2001 EP
1128303 Aug 2001 EP
1235177 Aug 2002 EP
0734556 Sep 2002 EP
0830774 Oct 2004 EP
1489523 Dec 2004 EP
2299369 Mar 2011 EP
2909742 Aug 2015 EP
2241359 Aug 1991 GB
H10509543 Sep 1998 JP
H11507752 Jul 1999 JP
3190881 Jul 2001 JP
3190882 Jul 2001 JP
3762882 Jul 2001 JP
3260693 Feb 2002 JP
3367675 Jan 2003 JP
2003157402 May 2003 JP
2006216073 Aug 2006 JP
2007042127 Feb 2007 JP
2008026971 Feb 2008 JP
4485548 Jun 2010 JP
4669373 Apr 2011 JP
4669430 Apr 2011 JP
WO9516971 Jun 1995 WO
WO9613013 May 1996 WO
WO9642041 Dec 1996 WO
WO9715885 May 1997 WO
WO9819224 May 1998 WO
WO9952626 Oct 1999 WO
WO0239318 May 2002 WO
WO2007068123 Jun 2007 WO
WO2010062540 Jun 2010 WO
WO2010062542 Jun 2010 WO
WO2012118764 Sep 2012 WO
WO2012118765 Sep 2012 WO
WO2013028322 Feb 2013 WO
WO2014060549 Apr 2014 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (68)
Entry
“Projects—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Jun. 7, 2017, retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017, Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/project-managers/projects>, 3 pages.
“Getting Started with lilt,” Lilt website [online], May 30, 2017, retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017, Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/api/lilt-js>, 6 pages.
“Interactive Translation—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Aug. 17, 2017, retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017, Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/api/interactive-translation>, 2 pages.
Hildebrand et al., “Adaptation of the Translation Model for Statistical Machine Translation based on Information Retrieval,” EAMT 2005 Conference Proceedings, May 2005, pp. 133-142. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228634956_Adaptation_of_the_translation_model_for_statistical_machine_translation_based_on_information_retrieval.
Och et al., “The Alignment Template Approach to Statistical Machine Translation Machine Translation,” Computational Linguistics, vol. 30. No. 4, Dec. 1, 2004, pp. 417-442 (39 pages with citations). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1105589.
Sethy et al., “Building Topic Specific Language Models FromWebData Using Competitive Models,” Interspeech 2005—Eurospeech, 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 4-8, 2005, 4 pages. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221490916_Building_topic_specific_language_models_from_webdata_using_competitive_models.
Dobrinkat, “Domain Adaptation in Statistical Machine Translation Systems via User Feedback,” Master's Thesis, University of Helsinki, Nov. 25, 2008, 103 pages. Retrieved from http://users.ics.aalto.fi/mdobrink/online-papers/dobrinkat08mt.pdf.
Business Wire, “Language Weaver Introduces User-Managed Customization Tool,” Oct. 25, 2005, 3 pages. Retrieved from http: ProQuest.
Winiwarter, W., “Learning Transfer Rules for Machine Translation from Parallel Corpora,” Journal of Digital Information Management, vol. 6 No. 4, Aug. 2008, pp. 285-293. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220608987_Learning_Transfer_Rules_for_Machine_Translation_from_Parallel_Corpora.
Potet et al., “Preliminary Experiments on Using Users' Post-Editions to Enhance a SMT System,” Proceedings of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT), May 2011, pp. 161-168. Retreived from Retrieved at http://www.mt-archive.info/EAMT-2011-Potet.pdf.
Ortiz-Martinez et al., “An Interactive Machine Translation System with Online Learning” Proceedings of the ACL-HLT 2011 System Demonstrations, Jun. 21, 2011, pp. 68-73. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-4012.
Lopez-Salcedo et al.,“Online Learning of Log-Linear Weights in Interactive Machine Translation,” Communications in Computerand Information Science, vol. 328, 2011, pp. 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.casmacat.eu/uploads/Main/iberspeech2.pdf.
Blanchon et al., “A Web Service Enabling Gradable Post-edition of Pre-translations Pro duced by Existing Translation Tools: Practical Use to Provide High quality Translation of an Online Encyclopedia” Jan. 2009, 9 pages. Retrieved from http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-Blanchon.pdf.
Levenberg et al.“Stream-based Translation Models for Statistical Machine Translation” Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, Dec. 31, 2010, pp. 394-402.
Lagarda et al. “Statistical Post-Editing of a Rule Based Machine Translation System” Proceedings of NAACL HLT 2009: Short Papers, Jun. 2009, pp. 217-220.
Ehara, “Rule Based Machine Translation Combined with Statistical Post Editor for Japanese to English Patent Translation,” MT Summit XI, 2007, pp. 13-18.
Bechara et al. “Statistical Post-Editing for a Statistical MT System” Proceedings of the 13th Machine Translation Summit, 2011, pp. 308-315.
Ghorab, M. Rami et al., “A Framework for Cross-language Search Personalization”, IEEE Computer Society, 2009 Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Media Adaptation and Personalization, Dec. 14-15, 2009, pp. 15-20.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 31, 2012, re International Application No. PCT/US2012/026815 filed Feb. 27, 2012, 17 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 22, 2012, re International Application No. PCT/US2012/026814 filed Feb. 27, 2012, 12 pages.
Dunlap et al., “ReVirt: Enabling Intrusion Analysis through Virtual-Machine Logging and Replay”, Dec. 11, 2002, USENIX Association, 14 pages.
Pun et al., “Audit Trail Analysis for Traffic Intensive Web Application”, 2009, IEEE, 6 pages.
Akkus et al., “Non-Tracking Web Analytics”, Oct. 18, 2012, ACM, 12 pages.
Pusara, M., “An Examination of User Behavior for Re-Authentication”, Aug. 2007, Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security, Purdue University, 244 pages.
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees dated Mar. 26, 2014, re International Application No. PCT/EP2013/071781 filed Oct. 17, 2013, 5 pages.
Bernth et al., “The Effect of Source Analysis on Translation Confidence”, In: “Envisioning Machine Translation in the Information Future”, Jan. 1, 2000, p. 89-99.
Uchimoto et al., “Automatic Rating of Machine Translatability”, 10th Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X), Sep. 12, 2005, p. 235-242.
Underwood et al., “Translatability Checker: A Tool to Help Decide Whether to Use MT”, Proceedings of MT Summit VIII: Machine Translation in the Information Age., Jul. 18, 2001, p. 1-4.
Choumane et al., “Integrating translation services within a structured editor”, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering, DOCENG '05, Nov. 2, 2005, p. 165-167.
Venkatapathy et al., “An SMT-driven Authoring Tool”, Proceedings of COLING 2012: Demonstration Papers COLING 2012, Dec. 8, 2012, p. 459-466.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jul. 2, 2014 in Application No. PCT/EP2013/071781 filed Oct. 17, 2013, 18 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2012 in Application No. PCT/US2012/049063 filed Jul. 31, 2012, 11 pages.
Ishida, “W3C I18n Tutorial: Declaring Language in XHTML and HTML,” Oct. 27, 2010, www.w3.org/International/tutorials/language-decl, pp. 1-7.
Trese, Andrew, “Systems, Methods and Media for Translating Informational Content”, U.S. Appl. No. 13/037,262, filed Feb. 28, 2011, 34 pages.
Jones, Rosie et al., “Beyond the Session Timeout: Automatic Hierarchical Segmentation of Search Topics in Query Logs,” CIKM '08, Oct. 26-30, 2008, pp. 699-708.
Ceylan, Hakan et al., “Language Identification of Search Engine Queries,” Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting fo the ACL and the 4th IJCNLP of the AFNLP, Aug. 2-7, 2009, pp. 1066-1074.
Nepveu et al. “Adaptive Language and Translation Models for Interactive Machine Translation” Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Jul. 25, 2004, 8 pages. Retrieved from: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/˜yarowsky/sigdat.html.
Ortiz-Martinez et al. “Online Learning for Interactive Statistical Machine Translation” Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, Jun. 10, 2010, pp. 546-554. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220817231_Online_Learning_for_Interactive_Statistical_Machine_Translation.
Callison-Burch et al. “Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation” [W12-3100] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 11-51. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Lopez, Adam. “Putting Human Assessments of Machine Translation Systems in Order” [W12-3101] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 1-9. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Avramidis, Eleftherios. “Quality estimation for Machine Translation output using linguistic analysis and decoding features” [W12-3108] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 84-90. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Buck, Christian. “Black Box Features for the WMT 2012 Quality Estimation Shared Task” [W12-3109] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 91-95. Retrieved from: Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Felice et al. “Linguistic Features for Quality Estimation” [W12-3110] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 96-103. Retrieved at: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Gonzalez-Rubio et al. “PRHLT Submission to the WMT12 Quality Estimation Task” [W12-3111] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 104-108. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Hardmeier et al. “Tree Kernels for Machine Translation Quality Estimation” [W12-3112] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation,Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 109-113. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Langlois et al. “LORIA System for the WMT12 Quality Estimation Shared Task” [W12-3113] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 114-119. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Moreau et al. “Quality Estimation: an experimental study using unsupervised similarity measures” [W12-3114] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 120-126. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Gonzalez et al. “The UPC Submission to the WMT 2012 Shared Task on Quality Estimation” [W12-3115] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 127-132. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Popovic, Maja. “Morpheme- and POS-based IBM1 and language model scores for translation quality estimation” Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 133-137. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Rubino et al. “DCU-Symantec Submission for the WMT 2012 Quality Estimation Task” [W12-3117] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 138-144. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Soricut et al. “The SDL Language Weaver Systems in the WMT12 Quality Estimation Shared Task” [W12-3118] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 145-151. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Wu et al. “Regression with Phrase Indicators for Estimating MT Quality” [W12-3119] Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Jun. 7, 2012, pp. 152-156. Retrieved from: http://aclanthology.info/volumes/proceedings-of-the-seventh-workshop-onstatistical-machine-translation.
Wuebker et al. “Hierarchical Incremental Adaptation for Statistical Machine Translation” Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1059-1065, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 17-21, 2015.
“Best Practices—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Mar. 6, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/translators/best-practices>, 2 pages.
“Data Security—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Oct. 14, 2016 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/security>, 1 pages.
“Data Security and Confidentiality,” Lilt website [online], 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/security>, 7 pages.
“Memories—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Jun. 7, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/project-managers/memory>, 4 pages.
“Memories (API)—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Jun. 2, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/api/memories>, 1 page.
“Quoting—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Jun. 7, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/project-managers/quoting>, 4 pages.
“The Editor—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Aug. 15, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/translators/editor>, 5 pages.
“Training Lilt—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Oct. 14, 2016 [retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/troubleshooting/training-lilt>, 1 page.
“What is Lilt—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online],Dec. 15, 2016 [retrieved on Oct. 19, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/what-is-lilt>, 1 page.
“Getting Started—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Apr. 11, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/translators/getting-started>, 2 pages.
“The Lexicon—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Jun. 7, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/translators/lexicon>, 4 pages.
“Simple Translation—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Aug. 17, 2017 [retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/api/simple-translation>, 3 pages.
“Split and Merge—Knowledge Base,” Lilt website [online], Oct. 14, 2016 [retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017], Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/translators/split-merge>, 4 pages.
“Lilt API_API Reference,” Lilt website [online], retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017, Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/docs/api>, 53 pages.
“Automatic Translation Quality—Knowledge Base”, Lilt website [online], Dec. 1, 2016, retrieved on Oct. 20, 2017, Retrieved from the Internet:<https://lilt.com/kb/evaluation/evaluate-mt>, 4 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20200143107 A1 May 2020 US
Continuations (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 15938288 Mar 2018 US
Child 16737892 US
Parent 13217122 Aug 2011 US
Child 15938288 US