Friends, The use of the word canon in this thread rang a big bell for me. My work involves WWW installations that facilitate research among distributed teams. A critical part of the process is the development of canonical documents about objects and processes in the issue domain. Early on it became obvious that a means of criticism was essential. To that end I developed (in 1996) a software system (DocReview) that allows the critics to make critical annotations on author- or editor-selected chunks of the text, or on the document as a whole. This architecture allows each "review segment" to become a thread in its own right. To make a long story short, if "stories" were mounted in DocReview anyone with some knowledge about the story, then they can add their observations in a separate commentary file devoted to the review segment. From time-to-time, the original author can revise the basic document to allow another round of commentary. A reader-accessible archiving facility retains the past versions with all their commentary. This tool has proven to be valuable for its intended use, and the empirical studies of the results form an important part of my dissertation. There is a demo version that is allows use of every part of the system except the actual posting of commentary. http://students.washington.edu/~veritas/DocReview/review30.cgi?name=DrDemo -- Charlie Hendricksen veritas@u.washington.edu "Information technology structures human relationships." "Models relate concepts."