TEI and iiif (metadata)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
MLH
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

TEI and iiif (metadata)

MLH

Dear all,

There is another point of contact between TEI and IIIF which relates to descriptive metadata (e.g. TEI's <msDesc>) and its treatment in the IIIF manifest. There are different perspectives on this in the IIIF world and many people want to keep manifest metadata minimal but in general I would think that manuscript scholars want more rather than less metadata. This is an active area of exploration in the IIIF manuscript community and it might be good for TEI to be involved.

Is there scope for a TEI /IIIF Special Interest Group?


Matthew


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: TEI and iiif (metadata)

Lou Burnard-6
Conceptually speaking is there any significant difference between an iiif canvas and a tei surface ?

Sent from my Huawei Mobile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: TEI and iiif (metadata)
From: MLH
To: [hidden email]
CC:

Dear all,

There is another point of contact between TEI and IIIF which relates to descriptive metadata (e.g. TEI's <msDesc>) and its treatment in the IIIF manifest. There are different perspectives on this in the IIIF world and many people want to keep manifest metadata minimal but in general I would think that manuscript scholars want more rather than less metadata. This is an active area of exploration in the IIIF manuscript community and it might be good for TEI to be involved.

Is there scope for a TEI /IIIF Special Interest Group?


Matthew


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: TEI and iiif (metadata)

Torsten Schassan-2
Hi Lou,

conceptually speaking there shouldn't be a significant difference so far
as I can see, quite the contrary: I think the are made for the same
purposes.

But regarding the expectations of the Image API <surface> might deliver
to few information itself. What the API expects is this:

{scheme}://{server}{/prefix}/{identifier}/{region}/{size}/{rotation}/{quality}.{format}

<surface> is able to deliver {region}.

Any contained <graphic> is able to deliver its own image size but this
is not what is meant by {size}. Implicit default value might be "max".
Information on {quality} might be only implicit as well ("default").
Both informations can't be stored explicitely.

Any contained <zone> is able to deliver {rotation}.


Best, Torsten


Am 05.07.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Lou Burnard:

> Conceptually speaking is there any significant difference between an iiif canvas and a tei surface ?
>
> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: TEI and iiif (metadata)
> From: MLH
> To: [hidden email]
> CC:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> There is another point of contact between TEI and IIIF which relates to descriptive metadata (e.g. TEI's <msDesc>) and its treatment in the IIIF manifest. There are different perspectives on this in the IIIF world and many people want to keep manifest metadata minimal but in general I would think that manuscript scholars want more rather than less metadata. This is an active area of exploration in the IIIF manuscript community and it might be good for TEI to be involved.
>
> Is there scope for a TEI /IIIF Special Interest Group?
>
>
> Matthew
>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.:
+49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165)
Handschriftendatenbank* http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: TEI and iiif (metadata)

Lou Burnard-6
Thanks Torsten. But surely most of the features required by the image API would be better supplied by the tei graphic wouldn't they? You might for example have two graphics of different sizes for a given surface.

Sent from my Huawei Mobile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: TEI and iiif (metadata)
From: Torsten Schassan
To: [hidden email]
CC:

Hi Lou,

conceptually speaking there shouldn't be a significant difference so far
as I can see, quite the contrary: I think the are made for the same
purposes.

But regarding the expectations of the Image API <surface> might deliver
to few information itself. What the API expects is this:

{scheme}://{server}{/prefix}/{identifier}/{region}/{size}/{rotation}/{quality}.{format}

<surface> is able to deliver {region}.

Any contained <graphic> is able to deliver its own image size but this
is not what is meant by {size}. Implicit default value might be "max".
Information on {quality} might be only implicit as well ("default").
Both informations can't be stored explicitely.

Any contained <zone> is able to deliver {rotation}.


Best, Torsten


Am 05.07.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Lou Burnard:
> Conceptually speaking is there any significant difference between an iiif canvas and a tei surface ?
>
> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: TEI and iiif (metadata)
> From: MLH
> To: [hidden email]
> CC:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> There is another point of contact between TEI and IIIF which relates to descriptive metadata (e.g. TEI's <msDesc>) and its treatment in the IIIF manifest. There are different perspectives on this in the IIIF world and many people want to keep manifest metadata minimal but in general I would think that manuscript scholars want more rather than less metadata. This is an active area of exploration in the IIIF manuscript community and it might be good for TEI to be involved.
>
> Is there scope for a TEI /IIIF Special Interest Group?
>
>
> Matthew
>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.:
+49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165)
Handschriftendatenbank* http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: TEI and iiif (metadata)

Ben Brumfield
In reply to this post by MLH
I'm more familiar with a IIIF canvas than a TEI surface, but the TEI guidelines suggest that they match.  But let's explore a use case I understand from IIIF and ask how TEI treats it to make sure, though:

A particular leaf--pretend it's a letter written by Abraham Lincoln--has been separated into fragments by an autograph dealer, and that those fragments have been imaged separately from each other.  In IIIF, we'd create a single canvas to represent one page of the letter, then use one image annotation for the text fragment and another image annotation for the signature fragment.  Both images would annotate the canvas, which is itself a somewhat hypothetical representation of the original page.  Transcripts would be textual annotations on the canvas as well, rather than using either image as a target.  (The verso page could have its own canvas with image annotations as well.)

Does surface work the same way?

Ben
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: TEI and iiif (metadata)

Conal Tuohy-3
G'day Ben!

My understanding of the IIIF Presentation APIs and TEI facsimiles is that the equivalences are:
  • IIIF Collection = <tei:teiCorpus>
  • IIIF Manifest = <tei:TEI> containing a <tei:facsimile>
  • IIIF Canvas = <tei:surface> or <tei:surfaceGroup>
  • A IIIF "Image annotation" on an IIIF Canvas = a <tei:graphic> element in a <tei:surface>.
  • A IIIF Image annotation that refers to a sub-region of a Canvas = a <tei:graphic> inside a <tei:zone> which is inside a <tei:surface>. In IIIF the region of the annotation is given in a URI fragment identifier (e.g. #xywh=0,0,500,500); the corresponding <tei:zone> has attributes which specify a bounding box or polygon as a sequence of X,Y points.
  • A IIIF annotation which isn't an image could correspond to various things in TEI: simple comments attached directly to an image would be modelled in TEI as <tei:desc>  or <tei:label> elements within the <tei:surface> or <tei:zone>.
Slightly more complex is the notion of ordering:
  • IIIF Sequences and Ranges model the logical ordering and arrangement of the Canvases. In TEI, the <tei:surface> elements obviously fall in an order in the XML file, but TEI users would usually consider that the logical arrangement of <tei:surface> elements is given by the logical order of the textual transcription, inside the tei:body element. In TEI, the <surface> elements are generally linked explicitly to <pb> (page break) elements in the TEI transcription. So in that sense, the TEI textual transcription really plays the role that Sequences and Ranges do in IIIF. The reason this is a complexity is that although the textual order of the content of a TEI transcription (the contents of a tei:body element) is generally just the order that the text appears in the file (so-called "document order"), this order can be modified; TEI has linking mechanisms (such as @next and @previous attributes) which can link parts of the text together in alternate orders, and logically join together segments of text that appear out of order. And there's also a "documentary" mode of analysis and transcription in TEI, in which the <facsimile> element contains the textual transcription. In this mode, there's no separate transcription in a <body> element; it is all embedded directly in the <facsimile>, <zone>, etc. markup; privileging the material aspect of the text over the logical aspect.

I hope that's helpful!

Might I ask, by the way, what use case you have in mind, particularly? Were you interested in making TEI texts that refer to IIIF services, or perhaps in making IIIF services which publish TEI texts? Or something else?

Personally I think the two models are conceptually very close and I can see possibilities for translation in both directions.

Regards

Conal

On 6 July 2017 at 20:58, Ben Brumfield <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm more familiar with a IIIF canvas than a TEI surface, but the TEI guidelines suggest that they match.  But let's explore a use case I understand from IIIF and ask how TEI treats it to make sure, though:

A particular leaf--pretend it's a letter written by Abraham Lincoln--has been separated into fragments by an autograph dealer, and that those fragments have been imaged separately from each other.  In IIIF, we'd create a single canvas to represent one page of the letter, then use one image annotation for the text fragment and another image annotation for the signature fragment.  Both images would annotate the canvas, which is itself a somewhat hypothetical representation of the original page.  Transcripts would be textual annotations on the canvas as well, rather than using either image as a target.  (The verso page could have its own canvas with image annotations as well.)

Does surface work the same way?

Ben



--
@conal_tuohy
+61-466-324297
Loading...