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

Re: Pattern for annotation on regions or objects?

From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:40:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CADUi7O7ncXL=9+e5ecqeiaEBXoajfA69PdLq7xBmGqDQLbzfmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Short and maybe oversimplified:  If both are actually in play, make a
single annotation with two bodies, one for each case.

Longer:

The remarks below are vaguely(?) related to your case, but I've on-and-off
thought of how to integrate OA with the ideas of the Audubon Core (AC) data
model [1] for metadata for biodiversity multimedia, the development of
which I was the group convenor. The relevant AC notion is that the
"serialization" and "acquisition" properties of media---in case there are
any---are separate, albeit sometimes overlapping---from the abstract
properties that describe such things as the content description, the
intellectual property aspects, and a few others. The resource may be
physical, such as a painting, and may have digital renderings for which
there is acquisition data that includes rendering specific properties. AC
has a repeatable predicate  ac:hasServiceAccessPoint that takes a complex
object that describes the attributes of what the access point delivers. I
suppose even a physical work could have a service access point describing,
e.g. how you could go view it in a museum where it is held.  AC has a lot
of content description terminology special to biodiversity media, and it's
not well separated in the model.  However, if we make an RDF form of the
model that is less naive than the not yet submitted [2], I think we would
try to separate the domain terminology specific to AC

Thus my vague point is that a single OA Body could be (like?) an AC object
and carry both the description of the abstraction (i.e. including the
description of every thing that is not special to the rendering) and
description(s) of the digital renderings connected by the
ac:hasServiceAccessPoint.


Bob

[1] http://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_Term_List

[2] http://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_Term_List_RDF_Version


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
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390

Filtered Push Project
Harvard University Herbaria
Harvard University

email: morris.bob@gmail.com
web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
===
The content of this communication is made entirely on my
own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard
University.
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 15:40:55 UTC

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