search

IIIF / trc

Technical Review Committee issue review
Apache License 2.0
1 stars 1 forks source link

Recipe #326: Annotate specific images or layers #98

Open glenrobson opened 1 year ago

glenrobson commented 1 year ago

Links

Background and Summary

This recipe looks at annotating a specific image when a canvas is made up of multiple images. This can be useful when there is an item that you want to draw attention to which is only present in one of the images. This matches the provided use case where the skulls are only present in the x-ray version of the image.

No viewer currently supports this type of annotation where the annotation targets a specific layer but this may be a model followed by the maps group as they are keen to look at ways of targeting specific Map images.

This is a re-submission of issue #96. A change has been made to use a IIIF Image Selector to get round the issues with using the Image URL. The scope has also been removed as it was identified as unnecessary when the annotation is embedded in the Manifest.

Voting and changes

We welcome comments on the recipe and as well as voting +1, confused face or -1 feel free to add comments to this issue. If this issue is approved then the author will take account of the comments before we merge the branch in to the master cookbook branch.

If the recipe is rejected by the TRC then we will make the changes requested and resubmit it to a future TRC meeting. If you feel that your comments are substantial enough that the recipe should be looked at again by the TRC after the changes have been made please vote -1 (thumbs down). A confused face is treated as abstaining.

Changes to the recipe will only be made after the TRC voting process has concluded.

robcast commented 1 year ago

I like it. I added some suggestions for wording in hypothes.is today.

digitaldogsbody commented 1 year ago

:+1: for the revised version - I like the ImageApiSelector approach, and this might push viewers towards implementing it!

regisrob commented 1 year ago

This sentence is unclear to me at first reading: Doing so if the Annotation is dereferenced all the relevant information will be embedded in the Annotation. (in Implementation Notes, 3rd paragraph). I think I got the idea, but the wording is a bit confusing and it still seems decorrelated from the previous sentence.

The annotations property within the service may be an appropriate solution (?) but my understanding is that it contradicts with the spec:

Other types of resource MUST NOT have the annotations property

See https://iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/#annotations

giacomomarchioro commented 1 year ago

This sentence is unclear to me at first reading: Doing so if the Annotation is dereferenced all the relevant information will be embedded in the Annotation. (in Implementation Notes, 3rd paragraph). I think I got the idea, but the wording is a bit confusing and it still seems decorrelated from the previous sentence.

The annotations property within the service may be an appropriate solution (?) but my understanding is that it contradicts with the spec:

Other types of resource MUST NOT have the annotations property

See https://iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/#annotations

Thanks for your review, I think you are right on both points. The IIIF spec issue is particularly critical. I am wondering if it would make more sense if we write the annotation at the level of the Image content resource. Maybe we could discuss them further in the next cookbook meeting.

azaroth42 commented 1 year ago

Agree with @regisrob that the current proposal is not valid.

glenrobson commented 1 year ago

Issue 98 (Recipe #326: Annotate specific images or layers)

+1: 21 [akrishnan15 cubap digitaldogsbody dlpierce eliotjordan glenrobson hadro irv jpadfield jtweed julsraemy ksclarke markpbaggett mathewjordan mixterj mposton-folger nfreire robcast thehabes triplingual zimeon] 0: 1 [regisrob] -1: 2 [kirschbombe mikeapp] Not TRC: 0 [] Ineligible: 2 [azaroth42 jcreel]

Result: 21 / 24 = 0.88

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved