Re: Annotation body a transcription of the target

Hi Rob,

I confess I'm still struggling in the big world of RDF so I didn't
really understand all your comments. See my struggles below :-)

On 17.10.13 17:00, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> If you're going in the route of a transcription being a resource with a
> label and no content, then it would be good to tag it as an oa:SemanticTag.

Is that just about the use of rdfs:label for the text instead of cnt:chars?

Or did I misunderstand Rainers comment? I understood his proposition to be:

<anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
  oa:hasBody _:body1 ;
  oa:hasBody <place1> ;
  oa:hasTarget <target1> ;
  oa:motivatedBy pelagios:someMotivationHere .

_:body1 a cnt:ContentAsText, pelagios:Toponym ;
  rdfs:label "Placename" .

<place1> a oa:SemanticTag, pelagios:PlaceOrSimilarTypeHere .

> And Robert, the above route would be in the opposite direction to Shared
> Canvas making them incompatible. Shared Canvas (and the IIIF Metadata API
> that provides explicit recommendations on how to use the ontology in
> practice) treats transcriptions as just a regular body, with a motivation
> of sc:painting (for painting some content, of any format, on to the Canvas
> that represents the page).

I was just looking at the SC spec and didn't find any examples for
transcriptions (on http://www.shared-canvas.org/datamodel/spec/ links to
the cookbok pages were broken and the examples page mostly empty).

The IIIF-Metadata specs are much more detailed but the format is
JSON-LD. Isn't the example in Section 5.6.1 of
<http://www.shared-canvas.org/datamodel/iiif/metadata-api.html>:

{
  "@context":"http://www.shared-canvas.org/ns/context.json",
  "@id":"http://www.example.org/iiif/book1/annotation/anno1".json,
  "@type":"oa:Annotation",
  "motivation":"sc:painting",
  "resource":{

"@id":"http://www.example.org/iiif/book1/res/tei.xml#xpointer(//line[1])"
    "@type":"dctypes:Text",
    "format":"text/xml"
  }

"on":"http://www.example.org/iiif/book1/canvas/p1.json#xywh=100,100,500,300"
}

much like the one above if "resource" is the Body and "on" is the Target?

> So if Shared Canvas compatibility is important, it would be good to align
> now rather than later :)

I think it may be a good idea so I would like to discuss it now. If it
proves to be impractical or unneccesary we should just leave it be.

Regards
 Robert C.

-- 
Dr. Robert Casties -- Information Technology Group
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Boltzmannstr. 22, D-14195 Berlin
Tel: +49/30/22667-342

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 12:57:37 UTC