Open kevinsbarnard opened 11 months ago
Another thought. Instead of putting the verifier
in the json, it might be better to just add a verified
association to the observation: e.g verified | self | <verifier name>
.
We would, of course, still need to change <platform>:pending-verification
to <platform>
add a verified association to the observation
The tricky part here is that the verification is tied to the bounding box, of which there may be many for a single observation. I know that in practice, we are almost always doing 1 observation to 1 bounding box association, but that's not always the case (e.g. parts). I guess the question is: what do we want the verification to represent? Just the ID (observation), or also the bounding box coordinates (association)?
we are almost always doing 1 observation to 1 bounding box association, but that's not always the case (e.g. parts).
My 2 cents is that any non-one-to-one relations should be considered a legacy usage at this point. Going forward we will avoid that.
Parts in VARS have been annotated using a part-of
association. So this is would be the canonical
usage
nectophore
|- part-of | Nanomia | nil
`- bounding box | self | { ... }
I guess the question is: what do we want the verification to represent?
Yeah. That's a discussion to have in the video lab. The simplest (and hence most likely case) is:
Coordinate with @hohonuuli first.