The Structure of Abstract Document Objects

  • Gary D. Kimura
  • Alan C. Shaw
Part of the Management and Information Systems book series (MIS)


A current research problem of great intellectual and commerical interest is the construction of interactive document processing systems that can easily handle the large variety of objects that typically appear in electronic and paper documents. These objects can be divided roughly into four classes: textual, tabular, mathematical, and pictorial. It has proven difficult to gracefully integrate the treatment of these different classes so that dissimilar objects may be used together, for example, mathematics within pictures, pictures within text, or text within mathematics inside a table. Ideally, there should be a common underlying structural model, similar editing and specification languages, and a uniform way to store, traverse, and display all objects.


Directed Acyclic Graph Abstract Object Concrete Object Shared Object Paper Document 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Nievergelt, G. CoRay, J.-D. Nicoud, and A. C. Shaw, (Eds.). Document Preparation Systems, North-Holland, New York, 1982.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. W. Kernighan and M. E. Lesk, Unix document preparation, Ref. 1, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Furuta, J. Scofield, and A. Shaw, Document formatting systems: survey, concepts, and issues, ACM Comp. Surv 14(3), 417–472 (1982); also contained in Ref. 1, pp. 133220.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Meyrowitz and A. Van Dam, Interactive editing systems: Parts I and II. ACM Comput. Surv 14 (3), 321–415, (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. C. Smith, C. Irby, R. Kimball, and B. Verplank, Designing the Star user interface. Byte 7 (4), 242–282 (1982).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. C. Shaw, A model for document preparation systems. Technical Report 80–04–02, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, April 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. E. Knuth, TEX and Metafont: New Directions in Typesetting, Digital Press and the American Mathematical Society, Bedford, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Burkhart and J. Nievergelt, Structure-oriented editors. Berichte des Instituts fuer Informatik 38, Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule Zuerich, Zurich, Switzerland, May, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Allen, R. Nix, and A. Perlis, Pen: A hierarchical document editor. Proc. ACM Sig-Plan Sigoa Symp. Text Manipulation, Sigplan Not. (ACM) 16 (6), 74–81 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. C. Engelbart, R. W. Watson, and J. C. Norton, The augmented knowledge workshop. Arc Journal Accession Number 14724, Stanford Research Center, Menlo Park, Calif., March 1973. Paper presented at the National Computer Conference, June 1973.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Carmody, W. Gross, T. E. Nelson, D. Rice, and A. Van Dam, A hypertext editing system for the /360, Center for Computer and Information Sciences, Brown Univ., Providence, Rhode Island, March 1969. Also contained in Pertinent Concepts in Computer Graphics, M. Faiman and J. Nievergelt, Eds., Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, 1969, pp. 291–330.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Beach and M. Stone, Graphical style towards high-quality illustrations, Proc. Sig-Graph 83, Comp. Graphics (ACM) 17 (3), 127–135 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. F. Goldfarb, (Ed.). Information processing systems processing languages text interchange and processing part six: Document markup metalanguage, Fifth Working Draft, International Standard, Iso TC97/SC5/EG Clpt N173–6, May 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. D. Kimura, A structure editor and model for abstract document objects. Ph.D. dissertation, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Washington, Technical Report 84–07–02, July 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Wirth, Programming in Modula-2, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Ts1Chritzis, Form management. Communications of the ACM 25 (7), 453–478 (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary D. Kimura
    • 1
  • Alan C. Shaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations