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

Re: Pattern for annotation on regions or objects?

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:26:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CABevsUHVKzxJF3PfbXVwVd=0E_5scpkX0RMVmh926uuavR4mdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

Sorry, I've been traveling for the past couple of weeks. Thanks for
bringing up and pinging the issue!

In my opinion, if the body is equally about the depiction and the object,
then it can be multiple targets.  You may also wish to have a relationship
expressed in the graph between the two targets.

For example:

_x a oa:Anno ;
  oa:hasBody <someBody> ;
  oa:hasTarget <physical object> ;
  oa:hasTarget <image> .

<image> foaf:depicts <physical object> .

Does that work for you?

Rob

On Wed, 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 13:27:03 UTC

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