Re: Pattern for annotation on regions or objects?

Hi,

No reaction on this?
I can't really believe this distinction is not relevant to anyone...

Best,

Antoine

On 5/1/14 5:06 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I had an interesting discussion with Jacco on annotating/tagging cultural heritage objects (paintings, sculptures)
> vs annotating digital representations of them (e.g. the 1200x800 JPG)
>
> For the first scenario we are rather clear that the target of the annotation is the object per se, which will be provided with its own 'real object'-identifier, like http://data.europeana.eu/item/92037/25F9104787668C4B5148BE8E5AB8DBEF5BE5FE03).
>
> For the second scenario the target should rather be the media file. Especially if we're talking about an annotation that was made on a specific region of the image. It doesn't make much sense to talk about a (100,200)px bounding box for a painting.
>
> But still in most instances of the second scenario, the annotation is of semantic nature, and would be about the original object as well (say, it shows the London Bridge).
>
> Of course both scenarios would happen in  like to have an easy way to keep track of the connection, so that the annotations-by-image-region also show among all annotations about the objects, next to the semantic tags made for the object directly.
>
> What would be the best way to represent the link between annotations in scenario 2 and real objects?
>
> We have considered oa:hasScope, but it seems to be rather for documents, web sites, not for objects in the physical world.
> The one option I'm considering now would be to have two targets for scenario 2 annotations: one for the image region (specific resource) and one for the cultural object itself.
> Would this be compatible with existing practices?
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 12:19:59 UTC