Supporting Organizational Learning with Collaborative Annotation

Ala Atrash, Marie-H

ene Abel and Claude Moulin

Heudiasyc, UMR CNRS 7253, Universit

e de Technologie de Compi

egne,

Centre de Recherches de Royallieu, BP 20529, 60205 Compiegne cedex, France

Keywords:

Collaboration, Organizational Learning, Semantic Modeling, Ontology, Annotation, Collaborative Annota-

tion.

Abstract:

Many research studies have shown that the organizational learning is a key factor that contributes to the well

being of the organization. The process of organizational learning is affected by the collaborative annotation

which plays an important role in it. However, current collaborative annotation platforms have a common

limitation which is the restricted ability to share, index, retrieve annotations as any other information resource

(e.g a document). In this paper, we deﬁne the annotation and we indicate how it becomes collaborative. We

present an original semantic model (MEMORAe-core 2) for collaboration and information sharing and we

show how the annotation is modeled as information resource. We present a web platform (MEMORAe) that

uses this semantic model. A use case for the use of this platform within small and medium sized enterprise is

also detailed. Within this work, our objective is to support the organizational learning by concentrating on the

exchange of ideas by means of the collaborative annotation.

1 INTRODUCTION

In this current uncertain economical situation, orga-

nizations should do their best to stay competitive.

(Alavi et al., 2010) afﬁrms that organizations which

learn can have a good competitive situation. (Huber,

1991) argues that organizational learning consists of

four points: knowledge acquisition, knowledge shar-

ing, knowledge interpretation and knowledge storage.

Facilitating the knowledge sharing is done by orga-

nizing the knowledge in order to be communicable

and integrable (Duncan, 1979). This means that the

knowledge should be represented in a comprehen-

sible and distributable manner and should be saved

in an accessible and consistent organizational mem-

ory. Many research studies pointed out the useful-

ness of collaborative annotation for facilitating learn-

ing within organizations. Current annotation taking

platforms do not take into consideration the aspects

of organizational learning. A common limitation of

these platforms is the restricted ability to share / re-

trieve annotations (Su et al., 2010). This is because

the annotations in these platforms are disconnected

from the information system and they are only acces-

sible in the annotation system. As a result, the an-

notations could not be indexed as any other informa-

tion resources (e.g., a document). This means that the

annotations are not accessible / visible like other re-

sources. In order to overcome these limitations, we

propose to consider the annotation as being an infor-

mation resource in its own right. This would facil-

itate the sharing, indexing, retrieving of the annota-

tions which in turns facilitates the implementing of

the collaborative annotation. As a consequence, the

collaborative annotation promotes knowledge circula-

tion within organizations. This leads to the applying

of the four points presented by (Huber, 1991): knowl-

edge acquisition, sharing, interpretation and storage.

As a result, the organizational learning is supported

by implementing the collaborative annotation within

organizations.

In this paper, we deﬁne the collaborative anno-

tation and we justify the role it plays for enhancing

organizational learning section 2. Current collabora-

tive annotation tools are presented in section 3. We

present MEMORAe-core 2 model and MEMORAe

web platform in section 4. A use case example is pre-

sented in section 5. We discuss the advantages of this

web platform over other collaborative annotation plat-

forms in section 6. Conclusion and future work are in

section 7.

237

Atrash A., Abel M. and Moulin C..

Supporting Organizational Learning with Collaborative Annotation.

DOI: 10.5220/0005082602370244

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2014), pages 237-244

ISBN: 978-989-758-050-5

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

2 COLLABORATIVE

ANNOTATION

2.1 Annotation Deﬁnition

(Oren et al., 2006) deﬁnes the annotation as being a

relation between the annotated data and the annotat-

ing data, this relation has a type and is done in a par-

ticular context. (Bringay et al., 2005) deﬁnes the an-

notation as: “A particular note linked to a target. The

target can be an other annotation, a collection of doc-

uments, a document or a document segment (a para-

graph, a phrase, an image, a part of an image, etc.)”.

(Slimani, 2013) precises four domains on which the

annotation could be applied:

• Document annotation: It is the annotation of doc-

uments or part of them. Users can take notes,

comments, remarks, etc. and share them with oth-

ers.

• Wiki annotation: Wikis are collaborative author-

ing of a particular content. Authors could con-

tribute by adding, modifying or deleting the con-

tent. Authors could add annotations to describe

the wiki. Annotations are added on page level to

describe the whole wiki page.

• Blog annotation: A blog is a website or on-

line journal owned by an individual who regu-

larly writes posts which are presented in reverse

chronological order. Contributors to a blog could

write comments to a particular post. An annota-

tion in a blog is a statement about a post. For

example, posts are classiﬁed with simple cate-

gories “sport”, “research”, “teaching”, etc. (Sli-

mani, 2013) considers that blog posts are anno-

tated with these categories.

• Tagging: Tags are descriptive terms (e.g., key-

words). For example, Flickr allows a tagging to

a particular image to describe its content (e.g.,

“car” for a car image). (Slimani, 2013) consid-

ers that tags express some unspeciﬁed relation be-

tween the resource and whatever the term refers

to.

The annotation granularity and form are terms

used in the annotation deﬁnition. So we need to deﬁne

these terms

• Annotation granularity (also called “scope” )

(Sazedj and Pinto, 2005) indicates if the annotated

data is a whole resource (e.g., a document) or part

of a it (e.g., a section inside a document, a sen-

tence, etc.). When the granularity is high, the an-

notation could be done to any part of the resource.

• The form of the annotation (Euzenat, 2002) indi-

cates the type of annotation, a textual object or a

structured object. Textual annotation has a plain

text form. Structured annotation could be a link

to a structured object (e.g., html page, xml, rdf,

etc.)

According to us, the annotation is an information

resource in its own right. We deﬁne an annotation

as the “transcription of an idea that have a particular

target and a body which is somehow about the tar-

get”. We consider that the annotation could have a

high granularity (Sazedj and Pinto, 2005). This means

that it would be possible to annotate the resource itself

or any part of it.

2.2 Collaborative Annotation Deﬁnition

Collaborative annotation is the process of annotat-

ing a particular resource by several users within a

collaborative environment (Petasis, 2012). Within

“Palimpsest

” project, the collaborative annotation is

the process of adding a comment to a shared space

(e.g., a document), this comment is either a note, an

explanation or a criticism attached to a particular text.

In collaborative annotation, the users have access to

the shared resource on which they could add their an-

notation. Users also have access to other annotations

of the shared resource.

According to us, the collaborative annotation

takes place when the annotation itself is shared be-

tween individuals who have access to the annotated

resource. In this case, the annotations could have an

impact on individuals who view it. This annotation

could be written by a single author or multi authors.

The annotation becomes collaborative when its con-

tent is shared between the collaborators. The anno-

tation “Body” could have different forms (Euzenat,

2002): plain text, a document, a chat, etc. When the

annotation “Body” is a chat, a wiki or a forum, the

annotation is necessarily written by multi authors.

2.3 The Role of Collaborative

Annotation in the Organizational

Learning Process

As mentioned earlier, the organizational learning is

done by supporting knowledge sharing and retrieval

within an organization. The fact that collaborative an-

notations are shared between users promotes the orga-

nizational learning. The annotations within a collabo-

rative environment reﬂects the opinions of the annota-

http://www.programhouse.com/pal/

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

238

tors about a particular resource. An already annotated

resource allows a better understanding of it.

Many research studies illustrated the usefulness

of collaborative annotation for facilitating learning

within organizations. For example (Nokelainen et al.,

2003) afﬁrms that collaborative annotation motivates

the individuals ability to learn which in turns en-

hances the organizational learning process. (Marshall

and Brush, 2004) indicates that collaborative annota-

tion provides an opportunity to facilitate making indi-

vidual knowledge a public one. As a consequence, the

annotations’ knowledge value is accumulated when

these annotations are shared. The experiment of (Su

et al., 2010) shows us how a collaborative annotation

web platform facilitates knowledge circulation and re-

trieval between individuals within a collaborative en-

vironment. As a result, sharing the annotations by

a collaborative annotation platform within an organi-

zation plays an important role in the organizational

learning process.

3 CURRENT COLLABORATIVE

ANNOTATION TOOLS

Most of the collaborative annotation tools are web

based applications (e.g PAMS 2.0 (Su et al., 2010))

and few of them are desktop ones (Petasis, 2012)

(e.g., SYNC3

). For example, Annotea (Kahan and

Koivunen, 2001), Bounce

, Diigo

, iComment

and

MyStickies

are extensions that could be added to a

web browser in order to annotate web resources (e.g.,

HTML pages, images). These extensions run inside

the browser along with a centralized server (to store

the annotations). Usually, these annotations are text

ﬁelds where users can type anything they wish. The

user of these tools can be part of one or more groups

whose members have access to the annotations of this

user (Petasis, 2012). Some tools allow the annota-

tion to collaborative environments (e.g., wikis, blogs).

Taking wiki annotations, we can mention WikSAR

(Aumueller, 2005), IkeWiki (Schaffert, 2006) and

SemperWiki (Oren, 2005). Most of wiki annotations

tools allow annotations only to a whole wiki page.

This is the same case in blog annotation tools where

annotations are done to the blog posts. For blog an-

notations, we can mention semiBlog (M

oller et al.,

2005), HP Semantic Blogging demonstrator (Cayzer,

http://www.sync3.eu

http://www.bounceapp.com/

http://www.diigo.com/

http://www.icomment.com/

http://www.mystickies.com/

2004).

None of the presented annotation tools consider

the annotation as an information resource in its own

right. The annotation in these tools is an integral part

of the annotated resource. As a result, the annotation

itself is not indexed and in order to ﬁnd it is necessary

to search the annotated resource. In addition, none of

these tools support the annotation that has a structured

object like a chat, a forum or a wiki. The only anno-

tation form (Euzenat, 2002) supported is the textual

annotation. In order to solve the annotation indexing

problem, we consider the annotation as information

resource in its own right. So the annotation could it-

self be indexed, shared, retrieved, etc. the same way

we do to index, share, retrieve, etc. a particular re-

source (e.g., a document). We also offer a new way

to create collaborative annotation. This is done by

supporting annotations that have structured form like

chat, wiki or forum pages.

4 COLLABORATIVE

ANNOTATION WITHIN

MEMORAE APPROACH

The main objective of MEMORAe approach is to

manage heterogeneous information resources within

organizations. The approach is comprised of a se-

mantic model (called MEMORAe-core 2) and a web

platform (called MEMORAe) which is based on the

semantic model. The model and the platform make

together a support to enhance the process of organiza-

tional learning. The details are in the following sec-

tions.

4.1 The Annotation within

MEMORAe-core 2 Model

4.1.1 Describing MEMORAe-core 2 Model

MEMORAe-core 2 semantic model (Fig. 1) con-

tains the concepts that describe “how we collaborate”.

MEMORAe-core 2 is built using owl (Web Ontology

Language). The model focuses on information re-

sources shared between individuals and groups of in-

dividuals within an organization. There are two main

aspects in MEMORAe-core 2 :

• Modeling the individuals and groups of individ-

uals: The organization in MEMORAe-core 2

model is a set of members. These members are

potential users of the MEMORAe web platform.

Each user belongs to one or more groups and each

group has its own sharing space in which users

SupportingOrganizationalLearningwithCollaborativeAnnotation

239

Figure 1: MEMORAe-core 2 model.

can share or access information resources.

• Modeling the information resources: The re-

sources in MEMORAe-core 2 are deﬁned as “vec-

tors of information”. The resources are divided

into two main categories: simple and composed.

A document, an agent, a note can be direct exam-

ples of simple resources. Composed resources are

composed of other resources (e.g: a note cluster

is composed of one or more notes). Each resource

is indexed by an index key which is visible for a

certain sharing space. The model supports docu-

mentary resources and social resources (e.g., chat,

forum, wiki).

MEMORAe-core 2 model uses the following seman-

tic web standards (Deparis et al., 2014):

• SIOC (Semantically-Interlinked Online Commu-

nities): It aims to enable the integration of online

community information (Breslin et al., 2009)

• FOAF (Friend Of A Friend): It describes persons,

their activities and their relations to other people

and objects (Brickley and Miller, 2010).

• BIBO (Bibliographic): It describes the biblio-

graphic resources (DArcus and Giasson, 2009).

4.1.2 Modeling the Annotation

The modeling of the annotation concept in

MEMORAe-core 2 model is based on the Open

Annotation

standard of W3C. The annotation

concept is added to MEMORAe-core 2 model as an

information resource in its own right so it is a subclass

of “mc2:Resource” concept. Each annotation has an

author, a type, an index, a “Target” and a “Body”. It is

the annotation itself that links the annotation “Target”

(the annotated data) with the annotation “Body” (the

annotating data). The annotation is created by a

“mc2:User”. The type of the annotation indicates

its nature (a comment, an explanation, a reference,

a question, a discussion). The annotation “Target”

(ﬁller of the “mc2:hasTarget” object property) could

be any concept in the model. This means that the

“Target” could be an agent, a document, a forum

post, a chat session ﬁle, a wiki page or any “Thing”

in MEMORAe-core 2 model. The annotation “Body”

is somehow “about” the “Target” of the annotation.

The “Body” of the annotation could be any resource

“mc2:Resource” of the model. The annotation (as

any other resource) is indexed by an index key

“mc2:IndexKey” which is visible for a sharing space

“mc2:Space”. The annotation becomes collaborative

when this space has two or more members who could

view it.

http://www.w3.org/ns/oa

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

240

Figure 2: MEMORAe web platform.

4.2 The Annotation within MEMORAe

Web Platform

4.2.1 Describing MEMORAe Web Platform

MEMORAe is a prototype web platform which is

developed using web 2.0 technologies and based on

MEMORAe-core 2 model. The platform aims to fa-

cilitate knowledge sharing within organizations. All

types of resources are indexed by one or more con-

cepts of a semantic map (Fig. 2) which is shared

among all users. The semantic map is the graphi-

cal representation of an ontology that represents the

speciﬁc terms of an organization. This semantic map

is built by importing the ontology ﬁle (which could

be generated by an ontology editor e.g., prot

e) into

the platform. This ontology describes “about what

we collaborate” and it differs from one organization

to another. In order to retrieve the resources indexed

by a particular concept, the user choses the desired

indexing concept from the semantic map. This con-

cept is then placed in the middle of the screen and its

color changes indicating that this is the “focus con-

cept”. If the user shares a particular resource, by de-

fault the resource is indexed by the “focus concept”.

The users could also add other indexing concepts of

the resource. The sharing spaces of the user could

be viewed in parallel while navigating through the se-

mantic map. This parallel view of sharing spaces is

advantageous because the user can view in parallel

the resources shared between different sharing spaces

(different groups) but indexed by the same concept

(the “focus concept”). This parallel view also permits

the user to easily transfer a resource from one sharing

space to another by means of “drag and drop”. In this

case, the resource is not physically duplicated in the

hosting server. It only becomes visible / accessible by

both sharing spaces.

4.2.2 Taking Annotation in MEMORAe Web

Platform

The user of the platform can annotate information re-

sources including documents, parts of them, notes,

other annotations, etc. There are two ways to access

the annotations, either when opening the annotated re-

source or directly through the resources list of the the

sharing space. An example of the ﬁrst way to access

the annotation is when the user opens a document,

he/she could retrieve all the annotations of this doc-

ument which are shared in a sharing space to which

he/she has access (cf.1 in Fig. 3). In order to create

a new annotation, the user choses the text that he/she

wants to annotate, precises the annotation type, the

indexing concept(s) (Fig. 3). The user should also

choose a sharing space to which he/she has access and

in which the document is shared. The user then writes

SupportingOrganizationalLearningwithCollaborativeAnnotation

241

Figure 3: Annotations in a document.

the content of the annotation and adds it. The selected

text is the annotation “Target” and the content of the

annotation is its “Body”. The user can not only add

annotations, but also ﬁlter the annotations of the docu-

ment thanks to the search tool (cf.2 in Fig. 3) which is

integrated to the document viewer. With such a tool,

it is possible to ﬁlter the annotations of the document

by type, date, author, indexing concept, sharing space

(to which the user has access), etc. The second way

to access the annotation is through its related sharing

space. This is because the annotation is modeled as

an information resource in its own right so it is ac-

cessible in the related sharing spaces when the “focus

concept” is the annotation’s indexing concept. When

the user clicks on an annotation which is visible in

the sharing space, the annotation is opened within its

annotated resource. This means that the resource is

being accessible by its annotations which are indexed

by the concepts of the semantic map.

5 A USE CASE WITHIN “TOUR

EQUIPEMENT” ENTERPRISE

“Tour Equipement” is a small enterprise (14 em-

ployed persons) which is specialized in the mechani-

cal production with 50 years of experience. The enter-

prise is situated in the Picardy region in France. The

enterprise hierarchy is composed of: owner-manager,

technical manager, production manager, commercial

manager and administrative manger. In addition,

there are 9 blue-collar workers in the workshop. The

process of organizational learning is highly affected

by the size of the organization. So this process is spe-

ciﬁc and needs a none traditional approach in SMEs

(Atrash et al., 2013). This is due to the signiﬁcant rel-

ative “weight” of each member in SMEs (Mahe. de

Boislandelle, 1996). As a consequence, one mem-

ber could play multiple roles at the same time. This

multitasking is a fundamental aspect that have an im-

pact on the organizational learning in SMEs. In ad-

dition, there are very few hierarchical levels with di-

rect supervision and coordination between the mem-

bers. As a result, employees and the owner-manager

have direct interaction and this coordination is usu-

ally more made in the action than based on prescrip-

tions and codiﬁed rules (Tsai, 2007). Two interview

sessions with “Tour Equipement” employees have re-

cently took place in order to identify the special need

for managing its knowledge. The ﬁrst session focused

on the main task held by each employee. The second

session concentrated to retrieve their daily practices.

This ﬁeld study illustrated that the employees tend to

take a lot of annotations during their daily work. As

mentioned in section 2.3, sharing the annotations be-

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

242

tween the members of an organization supports the

process of organizational learning within this orga-

nization. As a consequence, MEMORAe web plat-

form with its collaborative annotation functionalities

and its semantic model seemed an adequate solu-

tion which is dedicated to “Tour Equipement” need.

MEMORAe web platform allows “Tour Equipement”

employees not only to annotate documents (invoices,

plans, images of the designed products), but also to

share these annotations among each other.

To take a concrete example of using MEMORAe

web platform within “Tour Equipement” enterprise,

let’s suppose that following scenario:

1. The technical manager belongs to the “workshop”

group. He/she shares a document that describes a

particular order of a product.

2. The technical manager indexes the document by

the “jaw chuck” concept of the semantic map

(supposing that the “jaw chuck” is the ordered

product).

3. While the production manager (who is also a

member of the “workshop” group) is reading

the document shared by technical manger, he/she

ﬁnds a sentence that also corresponds to another

type of chucks called “collet chuck”.

4. The production manager decides to annotate the

document by a commentary saying “This is also

applicable for the collet chucks”.

5. The production manager choses the sentence and

adds his/her annotation. By considering this an-

notation as an information resource, the produc-

tion manager could share his annotation with oth-

ers. The annotation could be shared only in the

sharing space of the containing document (“work-

shop” group in this case).

6. The production manager choses to index his an-

notation by the “collet chuck” concept of the se-

mantic map.

7. Now this annotation is visible / accessible by the

members of “workshop” group when the “focus

concept” is “collet chucks” (Fig. 4). The members

of the “workshop” group could see the sentence

chosen by the production manager with his/her

commentary (“This is also applicable for the col-

let chucks”). The members could also open the

containing document if they want.

6 DISCUSSION

Taking back the “Tour Equipement” use case, we rec-

ognize that considering the annotation as an informa-

Figure 4: The annotation visible as an information resource

in its sharing space.

tion resource enabled the production manager to share

and index his/her annotation in order to be accessible

by others. The members of “workshop” sharing space

were able to access the document by the annotation

of the production manager. With other collaborative

learning platforms, the annotation of the production

manager is considered to be as an integral or com-

plementary part of the document. As a result, the in-

dexing and sharing of the annotation is not possible

and the only way to access the annotations is to open

the annotated document itself. Our platform has over-

come this limitation of annotation sharing by model-

ing this latter as an information resource in its own

right. The annotation itself is accessible as being an

information resource in the sharing space.

7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORK

This paper presented an original semantic model that

models the annotation as an information resource in

its own right. This enables to share and index the an-

notation separately from the annotated resource. The

model allows to create annotations that have a chat, a

forum or a wiki “Body”. We presented MEMORAe

web platform for collaboration that uses MEMORAe-

core 2 model as a base. We illustrated how this plat-

form implements and facilitates the collaborative an-

SupportingOrganizationalLearningwithCollaborativeAnnotation

243

notation. This would support the circulation of ideas

which in turns enhances the process of organizational

learning. Future work could be done by applying the

work of (Li et al., 2012) to capitalize the traces of

annotation-taking activities that took place within the

enterprise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Picardy region for ﬁnanc-

ing this project.

REFERENCES

Alavi, S., Wahab, D., and Muhamad, N. (2010). Explor-

ing the relation between organizational learning and

knowledge management for improving performance.

In Proceedings of Information Retrieval Knowledge

Management, pages 297–302.

Atrash, A.-A., Abel, M.-H., and Moulin, C. (2013). A se-

mantic model for small and medium-sized enterprises

to support organizational learning. In Knowledge Dis-

covery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Man-

agement., pages 476–483, vilamoura, Portugal.

Aumueller, D. (2005). Semantic authoring and retrieval

within a wiki. In Demos and Posters of the 2nd Eu-

ropean Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2005), Her-

aklion, Greece.

Breslin, J., Bojars, U., Passant, A., Fernandez, S., and

Decker, S. (2009). Sioc: Content exchange and se-

mantic interoperability between social networks.

Brickley, D. and Miller, L. (2010). Foaf vocabulary speciﬁ-

cation. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/.

Bringay, S., Barry, C., and Charlet, J. (2005). A speciﬁc

tool of annotations for the electronic health record. In

IWAC, pages 21–30.

Cayzer, S. (2004). Semantic blogging and decentralized

knowledge management. Communications of the

ACM, 47(12):47–52.

DArcus, B. and Giasson, F. (2009). Bibliographic ontology

speciﬁcations. http://bibliontology.com/speciﬁcation.

Deparis, E., Abel, M.-H., Lortal, G., and Mattioli, J. (2014).

Information management from social and documen-

tary sources in organizations. Computers in Human

Behavior, 30:753 – 759.

Duncan, R. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications

for organizational design. Research in organizational

behavior, pages 75–123.

Euzenat, J. (2002). Eight questions about semantic web an-

notations. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17(2):55–62.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The con-

tributing processes and the literatures. Organization

science, 2(1):88–115.

Kahan, J. and Koivunen, M.-R. (2001). Annotea: An

open rdf infrastructure for shared web annotations. In

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on

World Wide Web, WWW ’01, pages 623–632, New

York, NY, USA. ACM.

Li, Q., Abel, M.-H., and Barth

es, J.-P. A. (2012). Facilitat-

ing experience sharing in groups - collaborative trace

reuse and exploitation. In KMIS, pages 21–30.

Mahe. de Boislandelle, H. (1996). L’effet de grossissement

chez le dirigeant de pme: ses incidences au plan du

management des hommes et de la grh. communication

au Ill

eme CIFPME, pages 101–112.

Marshall, C. C. and Brush, A. J. B. (2004). Exploring the

relationship between personal and public annotations.

In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Confer-

ence on Digital Libraries, JCDL ’04, pages 349–357,

New York, NY, USA. ACM.

oller, K., Breslin, J. G., and Decker, S. (2005). semiblog -

semantic publishing of desktop data. In 14th Confer-

ence on Information Systems Development (ISD2005),

pages 855–866, Karlstad, Sweden.

Nokelainen, P., Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Floreen, P., and

Tirri, H. (2003). Evaluating the role of a shared

document-based annotation tool in learner-centered

collaborative learning. In IEEE ICALT conference,

pages 200–203.

Oren, E. (2005). Semperwiki: a semantic personal wiki. In

Semantic Desktop Workshop.

Oren, E., M

oller, K., Scerri, S., Handschuh, S., and Sintek,

M. (2006). What are semantic annotations? Technical

report, DERI Galway.

Petasis, G. (2012). The sync3 collaborative annotation

tool. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., Do-

gan, M. U., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, J., and

Piperidis, S., editors, LREC, pages 363–370. Euro-

pean Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Sazedj, P. and Pinto, H. S. (2005). Time to evaluate: Tar-

geting annotation tools. In Proceedings of Knowledge

Markup and Semantic Annotation at ISWC, pages 37–

48.

Schaffert, S. (2006). Ikewiki: A semantic wiki for collabo-

rative knowledge management. In First International

Workshop on Semantic Technologies in Collaborative

Applications (STICA06), pages 388–396.

Slimani, T. (2013). Semantic annotation: The mainstay of

semantic web. CoRR, abs/1312.4794.

Su, A. Y., Yang, S. J., Hwang, W.-Y., and Zhang, J.

(2010). A web 2.0-based collaborative annotation sys-

tem for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative

learning environments. Computers and Education,

55(2):752–766.

Tsai, W.-C. (2007). Learning in small and medium enter-

prises (smes) - take taiwanese smes as examples. In

Proceedings of OLKC- Learning Fusion, pages 966–

979.

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

244