balmas
commented
9 years ago We need to find a way to meet these requirements that allow us to: 1) take advantage of existing tools both inside Perseids and out for the student workflow, with minimal to no additional programming 2) preserve the data the students create in a way that is not specific to any tool 3) aggregates data and produce a nice publication with the Smith dictionary as its center piece.
I think we might be able to do something here by combining the Hypothes.is annotation bookmarklet tool and its API features with the Perseids google spreadsheet ingest. This would require a transformation of the Hypothes.is API output, but the cite annotation module in Perseids is already set up to be easily extended with other models.
If we define rules for the students along the lines of what we did for the timelines, I think we could end up with data that reusable in the way we want. If the PundIt tool was ready, this might be a better alternative than Hypothes.is because it's designed to support semantic annotations more natively I think, but it's not out yet and I think we need to work with what is ready. This is a prototype workflow anyway and we could then look at applying it more broadly to other tools later.
So, what I'm envisioning is a something like this
1) Student installs the Hypothes.is bookmarklet in their browser 2) Student navigates the section they want to annotate in Smith's in the existing Perseus 4 environment (e.g. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0104:alphabetic+letter=D:entry+group=11:entry=diomedes-bio-1) 3) Student toggles the Hypothes.is bookmarklet on 4) Student highlights the word or words they want to annotate 5) For a reference to a text, e.g in perseus, they navigate in another window to that text in Perseus and copy the stable uri then putting that as the annotation text in Hypothes.is 6) For a relationship to the topic of the Smith article, we give them a controlled vocabulary to use 7) For a link to an image, they supply the image url, etc. 8) When the student is ready for their work to be reviewed, they go to Hypothesis, make their annotations public, and copy the urls of their annotations into a spreadsheet, and then submits that spreadsheet to Perseids the same way they do for the timelines [ Steps 2-8 are shown in this screencast http://youtu.be/FlgwFJN1Ilc ] 9) The Perseids ingest process retrieves the annotation data from the Hypothes.is API (for sample output see https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/W-tSZzBLSmCDBBbwUkvmjg) and converts it to the OA format that we use, doing some data cleanup on the urls in the process, applying the SNAP ontology etc. 10) each annotation we save contains in it the link to the original annotation, so that Marie-Claire can see the annotation in context (again as we did for the timelines). (Replying inline in Hypothes.is is possible, but then all replies are public so I don't know if we want to use this for review) [ Step 10 is roughy shown here http://youtu.be/9BXVygbVnWU ] 11) Marie-Claire accepts the annotations, and then we have a set of annotations targeting the Smith's dictionary 12) We use GapVis, with the extensions that were done for Hellspont to publish and visualize the students work.
We will have programming work at steps 9 and 12.
Step 9 I think is only a day or two of work for me at most. I think the trickiest part about this will be the fact the text selectors Hypothes.is gives us are based on the HTML display of Smiths provided by the P4 hopper and we will have to think a bit about how we want to deal with that, particularly in the long run if we want to merge any of this back in the source TEI for the Smith's.
Step 12 will require transformation of our data to a format compatible with GapVis and likely some enhancements to the GapVis code. The Hellespont work is not yet merged into the mainline of GapVis development and probably won't be as they are currently coded. Initial discussions with the GapVis team were promising -- they may be able to commit some programming resources to this if we can define clear requirements for them.
Obviously this is a compromise, and it would be nice to have a seamless workflow that allowed the users to select from an existing ontology, navigate the resources which serve as the contents of the annotation, etc. all in a single environment. But we can't do that right now, and there isn't really any reason we should reinvent what other people are doing.
Marie-ClaireBeaulieu
caesarfeta
PonteIneptique
Original requirements from Marie-Claire:
-Use Smith as an anchor point to produce data on mythological/historical figures. -That data would consist in: texts and artwork describing/talking about these figures chronological and geographical info about these figures relationships between the figures (when applicable) -In concrete terms, what would the students be doing: -As we discussed, we should take a copy of Smith and work in a separate place (we can always link back to Perseus anyways) -Use the data already in Smith to collect texts (some of the texts cited in Smith are already linked to the primary texts in Perseus, others not, so we should have students working on regularizing that) -Add texts that might be absent from Smith -add links to artwork depicting these figures -organize the texts and artwork in timelines/timemaps using the workflow we had with timemapper. We can then append the timelines directly to the entry in Smith as a visualization, but we can also think of other ways to expose that data and make it available for other users who may want to conduct other types of analysis (e.g. if someone wanted to mine the Smith data, although it will be a long time before there's nearly enough to do that) -for the relationships, I would like to be able to define relationships among the figures present in Smith (such as "son of", "enemy of", "wife of", etc) and back it up with direct links to the primary sources in Perseus or other primary evidence such as artwork. We can offer visualizations of that once we choose a toolset and method.
Just as in my regular myth class the term paper will be centered around an object in the MFA depicting a figure present in Smith. In this case, I will include artwork from later periods (Medieval, Renaissance, etc), so the datasets created by the students will cover a broader range than the myth ones. These experiments overlap completely with what's intended for the prosopography work in Visible Worlds, so if it all works well we should be all set for that. I told Monica (and I talked about with Michele back in September) so it's all OK for them.
Hope this helps in giving you a sense of where I'm heading with this.