Feature focus: Comments & Cameras

[glenrobson]

We would like to coordinate viewer development around IIIF features so we are all working on the same feature at the same time and can share experiences and issues.

With this in mind we are proposing looking at Manifests which trigger a camera.

Examples of this feature from the 3d Repo include:

• Single Model with Comment Annotations and Custom Views Per Annotation Using Activating Motivation
• Single Model with Comment Annotations and Custom Views Per Annotation Using Activating Scope
• Whale Cranium and Mandible with Dynamic Commenting Annotations and Custom Per-Anno Views

and from the v4 spec:

• Whale Cranium and Mandible with Dynamic Commenting Annotations and Custom Per-Anno Views

Ideally we would work on this in a two week period and then demo and discuss in a TSG call. The next TSG call is the 22nd of July so lets see how much we can get done by then.

[vincentmarchetti]

The most detailed example of the activating annotation structure is in the example JSON text for the Interactive 3D Light Switch section of the Presentation 4 document. I propose that the example JSON in the 3D Comments with Cameras to be modified to be consistent with the light switch example, namely by

• Enclosing the single Resource in the activation annotation's body inside a List resource -- of just one element --, and assign that List as the body of activating annotations body property

• Modifying the action property of the activating annotation's body to be just one "show", interpreted viewing the scene with that camera.

This is a diagram illustrating the links between resources for the 3 annotation structure in which a annotation with "activating" motivation connects a "commenting" annotatation as the target with a resource that activates, by showing, a camera annotation painted into the scene.

My intention is to prepare the JSON file based on the current uc08_3d_comments_with_cameras.json but with these changes for review, for a potential PR to the spec.

[JulieWinchester]

My understanding is that uc08_3d_comments_with_cameras.json is correctly implemented and does not need to be updated, unless there is some specific issue with it?

The action list is also correct. Both cameras start hidden, and show ensures that the selected camera has the hidden behavior removed. Adding enable ensures that the camera can be interacted with. And having select indicates the camera should be used to view the scene.

[JulieWinchester]

The light switch example is pretty different from a situation with content, cameras, and possibly comments. The light switch example is for showing and hiding a content resource while also enabling/disabling activating annotations, creating a back-and-forth series of one-way interactions.

[gjcope]

Sorry I'm late to the conversation here, but Voyager should be compliant with all of these manifests now.

• https://smithsonian.github.io/voyager-dev/iiif/iiif_demo?iiif-content=https://iiif.github.io/3d/manifests/10_activating_annotations/astronaut_comment_activating_motivation.json
• https://smithsonian.github.io/voyager-dev/iiif/iiif_demo?iiif-content=https://iiif.github.io/3d/manifests/10_activating_annotations/astronaut_comment_activating_scope.json
• https://smithsonian.github.io/voyager-dev/iiif/iiif_demo?iiif-content=https://iiif.github.io/3d/manifests/10_activating_annotations/whale_comment_activating_annotation.json
• https://smithsonian.github.io/voyager-dev/iiif/iiif_demo?iiif-content=https://iiif.io/api/presentation/4.0/example/uc08_3d_comments_with_cameras.json

I agree with @JulieWinchester sentiment that the spec manifest seems ok but maybe @vincentmarchetti 's proposal could be a new TSG manifest? I think it's always good to have more examples (especially taking different approaches) to test against.

[JulieWinchester]

The Manifestival branch of Aleph should shortly be compatible with these manifests. Re: the uc08 manifest, maybe there is something wrong with it in terms of the model, comments, and/or camera positioning and targeting? Do others get results that look like these? I think UV/Aleph is showing what the manifest intends to show, and that the manifest positioning is odd, but I could be wrong.

Default viewer-inferred camera showing the comments are not in the intended location:

First comment's camera view specified, very weird:

[JulieWinchester]

Okay, latest Aleph/UV as deployed on GitHub (and used in Manifestival) can handle all four of these manifests, assuming the wonky results from uc08 are the intended results. I'll give these as manifestival links in case that helps comparison.

• https://morphosource.github.io/manifestival/?iiif-content=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2FIIIF%2F3d%2Fmain%2Fmanifests%2F10_activating_annotations%2Fastronaut_comment_activating_motivation.json
• https://morphosource.github.io/manifestival/?iiif-content=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2FIIIF%2F3d%2Fmain%2Fmanifests%2F10_activating_annotations%2Fastronaut_comment_activating_scope.json
• https://morphosource.github.io/manifestival/?iiif-content=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2FIIIF%2F3d%2Fmain%2Fmanifests%2F10_activating_annotations%2Fwhale_comment_activating_annotation.json
• https://morphosource.github.io/manifestival/?iiif-content=https%3A%2F%2Fiiif.io%2Fapi%2Fpresentation%2F4.0%2Fexample%2Fuc08_3d_comments_with_cameras.json

[gjcope]

The Manifestival branch of Aleph should shortly be compatible with these manifests. Re: the uc08 manifest, maybe there is something wrong with it in terms of the model, comments, and/or camera positioning and targeting? Do others get results that look like these? I think UV/Aleph is showing what the manifest intends to show, and that the manifest positioning is odd, but I could be wrong.

The camera view in Voyager is not exactly the same, but looks pretty similar. The comments also look to be in the same place.