Angelo: these CQs are not relevant useful to analyze music
Paul M.: interface to annotate music, scores, text that may be useful for classification. Expressing the chain of reasoning and guide the classification.
Jason: annotation on manuscript, music scores and music itself would be useful to develop this story (Vide Homo)
Paul W.: ontology describing reasoning process crminf
ontology allowing description of belief / opinions on a subject
The interface should let annotate documents / scores on a relevant piece but also let others explore somebody else annotations.
Possibility to work in collaboration and refine analysis.
Set up a dialogue with those who try the annotation.
Jason: Classification is not the single important aspect (CQs 1). Is also important, for example, the possibility to querying, search Polifonia KG or other associated linked data for supporting evidence of a particular theory
CRM inf provides a tool to annotate opinion, viewpoints assisting pragmatic analysis (see slides on the British museum example) CRM inf presentation
There is a useful spreadsheet that probably applies the CRIM inf annotation in the polifonia area designed by Christophe and Marco
Jason: look for similar tools, user interfaces, take screenshots to start collecting ideas
Look at visual argumentation tools.
Paul M.: CRM does not seem that popular, it doesn’t pop up in scholarly documentation. It may be difficult to use.
Paul W: there are few papers that seems to describe CRM’s use in Google Scholar
Jason: looks for visual annotations of music resources, there are not many but he will gather together what he finds
Christian C: shows us Neuma Referent: Raphaël FS (CNAM) Monica: the corpus contains scores only, not texts
Paul M. : An Argument Map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument:
Wrap Up
Current situation:
Look into CRMinf and any similar ontologies
Look discourse based information analysis
Look into visual argumentation tools
For next time:
ontology input
Marco/Christophe input
WRAP UP: visual interface to make claim, and possibility to make argumentation structure on top (dialouge, interaction with more users). How usable is CRMinf (Marco, Cristophe input) ? Next time need more connection with people working on ontologies (Model)
Valentina P. suggestions:
somebody from IREMUS should join the mockup group
one hour meeting weekly + chat on discord channel (groups can talk each others)
Christophe: to hard at this stage make an alignment with CRMinf, need to design clearly the model first and then give a try to an alignement
Story: Sethus - Conflicting Theoretical Interpretations
Story: Sethus
With: Jason, Monica, Christian, Angelo, Paul M. and Paul W.
Link: google doc
Ontologies: CRMinf
Angelo: these CQs are not relevant useful to analyze music
Paul M.: interface to annotate music, scores, text that may be useful for classification. Expressing the chain of reasoning and guide the classification.
Jason: annotation on manuscript, music scores and music itself would be useful to develop this story (Vide Homo)
Paul W.: ontology describing reasoning process crminf
ontology allowing description of belief / opinions on a subject
CRM inf documentation
The interface should let annotate documents / scores on a relevant piece but also let others explore somebody else annotations. Possibility to work in collaboration and refine analysis. Set up a dialogue with those who try the annotation.
Jason: Classification is not the single important aspect (CQs 1). Is also important, for example, the possibility to querying, search Polifonia KG or other associated linked data for supporting evidence of a particular theory
CRM inf provides a tool to annotate opinion, viewpoints assisting pragmatic analysis (see slides on the British museum example)
CRM inf presentation
There is a useful spreadsheet that probably applies the CRIM inf annotation in the polifonia area designed by Christophe and Marco
Papers that seem to describe use of CRMinf:
Tools:
Jason: look for similar tools, user interfaces, take screenshots to start collecting ideas
Look at visual argumentation tools. Paul M.: CRM does not seem that popular, it doesn’t pop up in scholarly documentation. It may be difficult to use. Paul W: there are few papers that seems to describe CRM’s use in Google Scholar Jason: looks for visual annotations of music resources, there are not many but he will gather together what he finds
Christian C: shows us Neuma Referent: Raphaël FS (CNAM)
Monica: the corpus contains scores only, not texts
Paul W.: shows us this paper: Software Support for Discourse-Based Textual Information Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review and Software Guidelines in Practice shows Homepage: viscourse
Paul M. : An Argument Map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument:
Wrap Up
Current situation:
For next time:
WRAP UP: visual interface to make claim, and possibility to make argumentation structure on top (dialouge, interaction with more users). How usable is CRMinf (Marco, Cristophe input) ? Next time need more connection with people working on ontologies (Model)
Valentina P. suggestions:
Christophe: to hard at this stage make an alignment with CRMinf, need to design clearly the model first and then give a try to an alignement