Collaborative document review system

• US 20060282762A1
• Filed: 06/10/2005
• Published: 12/14/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 06/10/2005
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Oracle International Corporation (Oracle Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Oracle International Corporation (Oracle Corporation)
• Inventors: Diamond, David Lane, Rubino, Michael S., Lizt, Jeremy
• Application Number:
  US11/150,055
• Publication Number:
  US 20060282762A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 715/235
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 40/169 Annotation, e.g. comment data or footnotes

Abstract

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 created, 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 can be retained and carried over into subsequent versions of the review document.

Claims

1. A method of collaborative document review comprising:

creating a review version of an original document and storing the review version in a location that is simultaneously accessible by at least one reviewer from more than one location;

enabling a selection of at least one section of the review version by the at least one reviewer;

enabling an annotation of the selection by the at least one reviewer; and

posting the annotation in connection with the selection, wherein the annotation is immediately visible to the at least one reviewer.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising, after creating the review version, uploading the review version to a URL address and transmitting the URL address to each of the at least one reviewer.

3. The method of claim 1 further comprising associating an annotation to a section of the review version by:

creating a signature for the section of the review version; and

associating a location of the signature with the annotation, wherein the annotation remains with the location of the signature if a content of the review version.

4. The method of claim 3 further comprising repositioning the annotation to a new location of the section of the review version by:

calculating a signature of the section appearing at a location originally associated with the annotation;

determining if there is an exact match between the signature of the section associated with the annotation and the signature of the section at the location originally associated with the annotation; and

if there is not exact match, determining if there is at least one close match between the signature of the section associated with the annotation and the signature of the section at the location originally associated with the annotation.

5. The method of claim 4 further comprising, if the at least one close match is found:

calculating a distance between an expected location of the signature of the section associated with the annotation and each of the at least one close match; and

associating the annotation with a location of the at least one close match that is closest in distance to the expected location of the annotation.

6. The method of claim 4 further comprising determining if there is at least one close match by comparing the signature of the section associated with the annotation with a signature of each section of the review version by:

computing a sum of part scores in each section of the review version;

comparing the computer sum of part scores of each section with a sum of part scores of the section associated with the annotation; and

identifying an acceptable close match on a basis of the computer part scores.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing a reviewer comment area in the annotation and an area for an author response to the reviewer comment.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising creating the review version by uploading a copy of the original document as a web page having a uniform resource locator (URL) address, wherein the review version can be accessing by going to the URL.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising the review version being a web-accessible document accessed through an Internet browser.

10. The method of claim 1 further comprising accessing the review version through an Internet browser without any additional client software.

11. The method of claim 1 further comprising storing the annotation created by one of the at least one reviewer in a database and storing anchor data related to the annotation that enables the annotation to be attached to its content.

12. The method of claim 11 further comprising storing the annotation separately from the document itself.

13. The method of claim 1 further comprising responding to a comment in an annotation by providing another comment within the annotation.

14. The method of claim 1 further comprising posting multiple annotations with the review document, each annotation comprising a live discussion between reviewers regarding a corresponding annotation.

15. The method of claim 1 further comprising repositioning the annotation from an original location to a new location after revisions to the review document by determining a match that is close enough in signature and distance to an expected location of the annotation.

16. The method of claim 15 where the repositioning further comprises comparing a signature of text to be located with a signature of each section of text in the document;

computing distance from an expected location of the text to be matched to a location of each section of the document;

finding an exact match to the signature of text to be matched that is nearest to the expected location of the text to be matched;

finding a close match to the signature that is nearest to the expected location of the text to be matched; and

wherein if the exact match is found the exact match is identified as the text being searched for, or if the exact match is not found, the close match is identified as the text being searched for.

17. The method of claim 16 wherein the comparing of the signature of the text to be located with the signature of each section of text in the document comprises:

computing a sum of part scores in each section of the document;

comparing the computed sum of part scores of each section with a sum of a part score of the text to be matched; and

identifying an acceptable close match on a basis of the comparison of the computed part scores.

18. The method of claim 16 wherein a signature comprises a series of twenty-eight elements, including one element for each letter of the alphabet, one element for any numeric character and one element for any separator character.

19. The method of claim 1 further comprising assigning an action associated with the annotation to another reviewer and automatically generating an email notification to the another review upon posting the annotation.

20. The method of claim 1 further comprising calculating a signature associated with the section being annotated and storing the signature as anchoring data separate from the annotation.

21. A method of web-based document review comprising:

accessing a web-accessible document to be reviewed;

selecting a section of the document to comment on;

entering a comment into an annotation field; and

closing the annotation field wherein the comment is immediately and simultaneously visible to any other reviewer of the document.

22. The method of claim 21 further comprising using an Internet-browser to access the document without any additional client software.

23. The method of claim 21 wherein the document comprises an html document.