Re: Pattern for annotation on regions or objects?

Hi Antoine,

I have modeled this problem before and feel the relationship of the physical object to its image representation ought to be handled separately from the annotation, roughly like this:  

		<artifact> <hasRepresentation> <image-artifact> 

Where an <artifact> is any human-created OR human-acquired entity, including collected specimens and objects.  

I think this problem is orthogonal to the question of representing annotations.


Best

Tim 

ps A vocabulary for this is available in a more comprehensive ontology, at http://purl.org/mp.    


On May 14, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.



The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.