Browse Prior Art Database

Linking an existing comment to different line or locations of a file under review

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000227835D
Publication Date: 2013-May-21
Document File: 3 page(s) / 40K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

Disclosed is an automated mechanism for linking a comment to multiple locations for a file under review but still maintaining the uniqueness and integrity of each comment.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 43% of the total text.

Page 01 of 3

Linking an existing comment to different line or locations of a file under review

Overview of Software Review Mechanism :

Using the software review tools, different types of files (text, image, pdf, html, xls, java, c etc) can be reviewed. The review mechanism is that the author of the respective file requests a review. On request the reviewer open the designated file for review and provides comments. There are different mechanisms of review provided by the various review tools. As some provide feature of line review, some point review and some page review. The difference in these is that a reviewer can add his comment at line level, or at any point in the page under review or for a complete page. The comment and the point of comment where comment was inserted get virtually attached by a line or character number and line number. This helps the author and reviewer easily locate the position where comment was inserted.

Problem Identified with Currently Available Solutions :

While reviewing a file there are instances when the reviewer identifies the same mistake repeated multiple times in the page under review. For example while reviewing a text page of 20 lines, reviewer identifies the same spelling mistake being repeated in lines 1,2,5,7 and 14.

For this currently reviewer has to click at the desired locations and then insert a new comment though the comment content is same or referencing the earlier comment. The drawbacks with this approach are that reviewer has to type the same comment text over and over again or copy / paste it multiple times at the desired locations. This approach leads to a lot of reviewer time being wasted in re-writing the comment again. An automated way of doing the same is using bookmarks but in this automated manner the drawback is that reviewer has to memorize all the bookmarks being used in that review.

The other approach that a reviewer might take is to comment at one place and mention the other line numbers where it is also applies. This approach leads to increasing the chances of reviewer missing to add line numbers to a particular comment and author missing correction on all the lines. This approach also gives an incorrect status of the number of comments as system would record it as one comment whereas reviewer had provided multiple. An automated way of doing this is by cross referencing of comment. Here the problem in cross-referencing is that on clicking the automated link, it routes you to the original comment, thus user losing track of where he was in that document. Here one of the major constraints is also that author cannot reply separately on each hyper link.

Here a solution is required to save reviewer effort of being able to connect one comment to multiple locations with ease and without wasting time in typing the same thing repeated times. The comment would reflect as a separate comment for each location and thus removing the chances of authors and reviewers missing any comment. Each com...