W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Pattern for annotation on regions or objects?

From: Steven Huwig <shuwig@courseload.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:50:58 -0400
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AA5AEC44-B622-4B80-A88B-150C122B6588@courseload.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
The amateur philosopher in me is tempted to examine the assumption that the first case actually targets the “object per se”, rather than yet another representation of the object.

The amateur librarian in me thinks that the object resource and the image resource share a common subject (independent of the annotations), and unifying their annotations during presentation would best be done by linking via the underlying target resources’ shared subject, rather than through the annotations mechanism.

I am looking forward to hearing the opinions of non-amateurs, though.

Thanks,
Steven Huwig

On May 14, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 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 13:25:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:06 UTC