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

Re: Pattern for annotation on regions or objects?

From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:42:17 +0100
Message-ID: <53739CE9.5030601@light.demon.co.uk>
To: public-openannotation@w3.org
Not an opinion on the "right answer", but some thoughts on the context 
of the question ...

The relationship between a digital image and a real-world object 
depicted in that image is also the focus of attention of the ad hoc IPTC 
working group looking at image metadata for cultural heritage. It would 
surely make sense for the approach adopted by OA to be consonant with 
the IPTC approach. [1]  Personally I would prefer a strategy where the 
annotation links to the URL representing the image, and this URL itself 
dereferences to indicate the real-world object(s) depicted therein.  
While this makes the link between source and real-world object a 
two-step process, it is semantically unambiguous, compared with having a 
pair of links floating about within the annotation which you are meant 
to know have a special relationship.  How, in fact, would you indicate 
this?  (Of course, it would also mean using Someone Else's Standard, 
which no-one ever does. )

My second thought is that the demarcation of an area of an image is, 
logically speaking, much the same process as marking out a section 
within a text. While the means of doing so will be different, the 
relationship between the subset of the resource so marked-out, and the 
annotation, should be carried out in an identical manner.


On 14/05/2014 13:19, Antoine Isaac 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

*Richard Light*
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 16:42:46 UTC

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