[annotator-dev] RFC: new ideas for specifying image regions

Robert Sanderson azaroth42 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 5 16:01:13 UTC 2014

Is there an issue with what Open Annotation recommends, being the xywh
media fragment for rectangular bounding boxes, and SVG for everything else?




On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Robert Casties
<casties at mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de>wrote:

> I am starting to work again on our image annotation tool for our image
> server digilib. I want to implement polygon-shaped image regions too and
> I have been rethinking the JSON-format for specifying image regions.
> After looking at GeoJSON (http://geojson.org/geojson-spec.html) I have
> reworked our annotation format slightly:
> <
> https://it-dev.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/tracs/Annotations/wiki/json-annotation-format
> >
> To be close to GeoJSON the "type" of the shape is now in the "geometry"
> object.
> Also from GeoJSON I took the idea to specify the shapes only by points
> and not lengths. So the Rectangle is specified by two corner points
> instead of one point, height and width. This also makes coordinate
> transformations easier.
> GeoJSON does not have a Rectangle type, only Polygon (which makes sense
> when working with different coordinate systems). Should we also rather
> specify the rectangles as polygons?
> I also thought about renaming the member for the image region in the
> annotation from "shapes" to "regions" which would make it easier to deal
> with the older format. Or should I stick with "shapes", what do you think?
> Thanks
>         Robert
> _______________________________________________
> annotator-dev mailing list
> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20140205/188492df/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the annotator-dev mailing list