In a chapter of a recent work on documentary genres [ZAC 15a], the notion of a digital apparatus for documentary mediation was introduced. Following this approach, based on the semiotics of cooperative transactions, it was found that a digital mediation apparatus does not correspond to a single artifact; instead, it denotes the process of mediation carried out by a series of mediating artifacts in a transactional flow linking the creators and the beneficiaries of a series of conjoined actions. In this apparatus, the question of the identification of fragments which constitute documents, in the sense described below, is more complex than it was at a time when paper was the medium in question. This does not, however, undermine the relevance of the concept of the document as content and medium produced by, and enabling the spatiotemporal transmission of cooperative transactions, by means of the reading and writing activities discussed in this book.

To return to the summary given in the work mentioned above [ZAC 15a], when mediating artifacts have a permanent support that enables them to circulate through space and time independent of the situated gestuality of the actors, they potentially have documentary status, whether their function is principally semiotic or expressive. However, not all of the artifacts in circulation are documents. In the most classic case, it must be possible to transcribe or record the medium, and more importantly to “documentarize” it [ZAC 04]. Documentarization corresponds to specific inscription operations which aim to permit the reuse of the medium in the context of future transactions made by a person with themselves or with others, i.e. to allow memorization and coordination. An on-the-spot recording or retranscription with no structure or contextual information has little chance of being reusable in a different spatiotemporal context. According to the functional vision put forward by Briet [BRI 51], the medium would not constitute a testimony contributing to memories of a subject or to the collective memory of a group, and could not, therefore, be considered to be a document.

Documentarization is an annotation activity in the broadest sense of the term [ZAC 07b] with the capacity to fulfill three complementary functions: attentional, associative and contributive. It may involve a variety of procedures, from (1) attentional annotation: the selection of typographic properties intended to highlight certain elements of a text; to (2) associative annotations: the use of systematized knowledge organization languages which contribute to the classification, indexing, temporal and/or social contextualization of the document; and finally (3) contributive annotations: relate to a process of iterative construction of the body of the text; here, the primary work of documentation is the same as that of documentarization. A distinction may be made between internal documentarization, which aims to establish coherency and to articulate the different fragments which constitute a text or, more generally, the semiotic product, which may also take the form of audio or video, and external documentarization, which aims to create connections between a medium and other media, a document and other documents, and may include certain classic metadata elements found in library science.

In the same chapter as aforementioned, the fact that the use of digital media has led to an anthropological mutation in forms of documentality, affecting many areas, including scientific activity, was highlighted; this is evident in the emergence of the new domain of digital humanities. Notably, a new and unprecedented macro-regime of digital documentality has emerged in the form of Documents et dossiers pour l’Action or DopA (Documents for Action) [ZAC 04, ZAC 07a], a direct consequence of the digitization of media and generalization of access to data networks, now almost as widespread as vocal communication networks. DopA are documentary mediation apparatus which provide evolutive support for the cooperative transactions of a collective using a permanent medium marked by prolonged or intrinsic incompleteness, high levels of fragmentation and a complex distribution of contributions from writers and readers

In the classic regime of documentality, be it administrative and related to government practices, or commercial and related to the publishing industry, there is a clear and asymmetric separation between the participants in a transaction, authors on the one hand and readers on the other; there is also a dissociation in the temporality of their activities. Conversely, the roles of participants in the document for action regime are symmetrical and temporalities are brought closer together through an increase in interactivity, in both professional and non-professional activities. However, the DopA macro-regime of documentality actually covers multiple evolutions of documentality which are specifically applicable to the digital sphere [ZAC 15a]: the distribution regime (circulation vs. publication or push vs. pull), autonomy (connected or disconnected modes), granularity and fragmentation (documents created as a whole or as an accumulation of mechanically-articulated fragments), referentiality (notably in relation to URIs, allowing the identification of resources online, interactivity (through the presence of hyperlinks), and conversationality (“real time” updates and creation of content on a publicly-visible platform).

Taken together, these properties are involved in defining the five types of digital documentary mediation apparatus which we have identified: (1) diffusional mediation, push or pull exchange of highly granular documents through broadly asynchronous transactions, (2) writing mediation, designed to permit iterative and in-depth co-construction of content in a synchronous or asynchronous manner, (3) contributive mediation, corresponding to community usage on and of the Internet (Web), essentially focused on dialog transactions (forums, blogs, etc.), (4) attentional mediation in flow mode, with an intensification of contributive apparatus corresponding to the usages of large social networks in a monopolistic position, and (5) anchored transmedia mediation, in which writing and recording substrates operate alongside other non-documentary mediating artifacts, within the context of a social event or via geolocation.

The chapters of this work explore the different ways in which we may profit from new systems of digital documentality in the field of humanities from the perspective of reading and writing activities, the renewal of which is intrinsically linked to the new functions of media, as Broudoux and Kembellec explain in the first chapter. Furthermore, the activity of scholarly reading is not limited to the domain of research. Considering the results of several empirical studies, Clavier and Paganelli highlight the central character of these activities within a process which, whilst often unobserved, forms an essential part of many professions in the tertiary sector.

Some authors have highlighted types of digital mediation apparatus which are still at an early stage of development, presenting the associated innovations in terms of technology and usages. Lisa Chupin is one of these authors, devoting a chapter to contributive apparatus used in the Recolnat project, of which the Dicen-Idf laboratory is a major partner. She shows the way in which academic crowdsourcing combines community and algorithmic forms of reading and writing, creating the potential to produce new knowledge for research professionals, and for amateurs interested in the activities in question.

Similarly, Thomas Bottini’s chapter, focused more specifically on writing mediation apparatus used by researchers working on the same project, explains how the transformations of documentality regimes linked to the DopA have re-founded critical working practice enabling an externalization of the thought operations involved in scholarly reading in both individual and community contexts, in an almost totally new way.

Similarly, Verlaet and Dillaerts study the transformations resulting from the interactivity of hyperlinks in diffusional mediation apparatus in 2.0 journals. This evolution of forms of indexing, requiring increased user engagement, is, according to the authors, likely to facilitate the appropriation of a collection by users over time, enriching modes of transverse navigation.

Two further chapters focus on specific properties of digital documentality, notably with an in-depth look at the role of knowledge organization systems. Interactivity via hyperlinks has transformed the internal and external documentarization of media, amplifying the potential for referentiality. Thus, Letricot and Beretta highlight the central role of knowledge organization in the architecture of contributive digital mediation apparatus designed for collaborative annotation of historical sources and information: the XML portal from the symogih.org project. As in the case of 2.0 journals, but this time in the context of corpora of historical texts, the use of an “ontology” to structure the hyperlink system facilitates transverse navigation allowing the creation of new connections between sources.

Prime-Claverie and Mahé consider the interoperability of systems for the organization of knowledge used in external documentarization of scientific collections in the humanities, a question which is crucial to referentiality; their approach is based on the standard promoted by the OAI-PMH protocol. However, their analysis is nuanced by the difficulties involved in the harmonization of descriptive criteria and vocabulary when one steps outside the confines of a specific scientific community engaged in shared work.

Finally, Marc Jahjah considers the Hypothes.is platform demonstrating the extent to which digital mediation apparatus are based on constructs which associate technical functionalities with new systems of cooperation. The importance of the discourse which accompanies the promotion of platforms, as we highlighted in the case of Bitcoin [ZAC 15b], is also evident in the field of digital humanities. The author shows how different modules of the site (forum, link bases, calendars, résumés, etc.) constitute a form of Dossier for Action, a medium for collective expression and community feeling.