User:Simon/Annotation typologies: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==from the books project== | |||
Typologies identified from a previous project, which explored "marks of use" in books from a section of the State Library of Victoria. | Typologies identified from a previous project, which explored "marks of use" in books from a section of the State Library of Victoria. | ||
Revision as of 10:07, 1 June 2019
from the books project
Typologies identified from a previous project, which explored "marks of use" in books from a section of the State Library of Victoria.
http://simonbrowne.biz/projects/from-the-books-slv-rbrr-000-099/
ACCIDENTAL DOG-EAR *
ANNOTATION *
ASTERISK *
BOOK PRICE *
BOOKMARK *
CIRCLED TEXT *
CREASED PAGE *
CROSS *
DEAD ANT *
DOG-EAR *
ERASER RUBBING *
ERRATA *
FINGERPRINT *
FOLD *
HANDWRITTEN LETTER *
INK BLOT *
LIBRARY DOCUMENT *
LIFTED PRINT *
LINE *
LOOSE PAGE *
NOTEPAPER BOOKMARK *
NOTES *
PAGES REMOVED *
POST-IT NOTE *
RECEIPT BOOKMARK *
REPLACED IMAGE *
SCUFF *
SMUDGE *
SQUIGGLE *
STAIN *
STRIKETHROUGH *
TICK *
TORN PAGE *
TORN PAPER BOOKMARK *
UNDERLINING *
WARPED PAGE *
WEAR AND TEAR
These formed a loose classification system that indexed these books not by bibliographic reference, but by the frequency of occurrence, taking a "bag of words" approach. Problems that arose were linguistic - it was difficult assigning a word to an example as this already had some assumption of intention (e.g. a doodle as an intentional drawing vs squiggle as unintentional drawing).
thoughts and reflections
Whereas my previous approach was one of identification based on nouns, which presented problems. In a sense, to name something is to own it. Things become property much more easily than actions. Perhaps a different approach of identifying actions may be more open and associative than a noun-based classification scheme.