[tei-council] updated facsimile odd

[Christian Wittern]

Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 09:13 +0100, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>   
>> Christian Wittern wrote:
>>     
>>> As I understand it you link to the surface coordinates and then go and 
>>> see which graphic covers the area you are interested in.  That seems 
>>> to be the whole point of this indirection.
>>>       
>> umm. expand on "the surface coordinates" for me. if they are unitless 
>> and unbounded,
>> they cannot mean anything.
>>     
>
> I think myself subject to clarification that we should be calling a
> spade a spade here: everything in the ODD and its description suggests
> to me that we are counting pixels. If we were doing anything else surely
> we'd need some kind of translation table and discussion of how real
> world measurements get converted to locations on the image?
>   
Let's assume you have a page of 297x210mm, which is covered by the 
surface element, which gives you also a grid of 0 0 100 100 to work 
from.  The grid is more like the one you have on maps, which simple go 
from A, B, C, D,... and 1, 2, 3, 4, ... which allows you to say that 
something you are interested in is in C1, without any need to worry 
about the scale of the map.  In the same way, you could say there is a 
spot of spilled ink at 20 20 40 40.  If and only if you want to know the 
size of this spot, then you will need to look up the dimensions and 
calculate the scale factor.

> I think real world object coordinates would be brilliant to have.
> Conservators would love them too, I bet, since they would be image
> independent (you'd just need to add new reference coordinates to your
> lookup table). But we are simply not talking about that or any other
> measurement as far as I can see.
>   
See above, I think we can't really do without providing the possibility 
of registering dimensions.

> The hi/lo res issue is an important one: if I have
> surface/graphic at id="hi1"|graphic at id="lo1" then the references for the
> bottom right corners of the box (at least) will be different in each;
> and if we are not starting in 0,0, then botheth sets will be different.
> Should we perhaps somehow indicate a reference image in those cases?
> This would allow the images to be aligned, since one would be expressed
> in terms of the other. Of course, then surtheface is starting to look
> like app; but that's neither here nor there ;)
>   
Now this seems coming closer and closer to reinventing METS...

Christian


-- 
 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN