As the process of Science is not the production of scientific papers, but rather the conversation that takes place with and around these documents, the social context in which a paper appears is a crucial aspect we wish to capture. The rich repository of recorded audience comments on conference preceedings is an example of how lightly moderated, unrefereed discussion centered on a document can vastly increase its richness. While these conversations are happening all the time over the internet (see Section 7.2), they are not tagged to specific parts of papers, nor are they easily collectable or moderatable.
There is now a push, both in industry ventures and in open standards, to allow for the annotation of digital objects across the internet. The World Wide Web Consortium, responsible for developing web standards, has a working group on open standards, with a nice visualization of their ideas here.
Examples: http://www.w3.org/annotation/, http://hypothes.is, http://www.annotationframework.org, http://iannotate.org, http://genius.com
Ideas from CE: 2 sentences!
Notes only: Hypothes.is video is nice https://hypothes.is/what-is-it/ and they reference the Annotator OKF project, https://edu.critiqueit.com/ as a way to add interactive comments and possible the Domeo project (new name?) and the ability to make claims, like the librarians do when identifying that papers use data from facilities (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6352.pdf). Martin Fenner has a nice article on fragment identifiers and DOIs http://blog.martinfenner.org/2014/08/02/fragment-identifiers-and-dois/. Yes, must utilize http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.
options, Open Annotations, etc.
