Linked Data Annotation Without the Pointy Brackets: Introducing Recogito 2

Rainer Simon, Elton Barker, Leif Isaksen, Pau de Soto Cañamares · Journal of Map & Geography Libraries · 2017 · digital-humanities · 10.1080/15420353.2017.1307303 · record simon2017-recogito
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The supplied text file is truncated mid-sentence in section 5.2 ('users can choose to perform Named Entity Recognition, i.e. attempt to pre-annotate'), so sections 6 (architecture and gazetteer integration) and 7 (long-term vision) are absent and could not be faceted. The Pundit relation is typed 'contradicts' because the vocabulary offers no 'critiques' value: the paper does not dispute Pundit's results but argues against its technology-led design ('tools must first and foremost provide scholars with efficient workspaces in which they can engage with their materials'). Replication status is 'untested' — the paper reports usage figures from two workshops and the Pelagios 3 project as evidence of uptake, not a tested claim. The workshop numbers (6,620 and 7,511 contributions; geo-resolution rising from 2% to 7% of actions) are evaluation data the facet set has no slot for. 2026-08-14, 2026-08-16 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

1 quote on this page carries a character that renders as nothing. 1 such character in all: a zero-width character. The PDF this text came from used characters that survive extraction as code points no ordinary font draws, so the quote reads as though they were never there. That can change what a sentence says: a soft hyphen left by a line break puts a space inside a word, so document reads as docu ment; a flattened superscript turns 10⁹ into 109. The quotes are reproduced exactly as the extraction left them and have NOT been repaired — the meaning of such a code point belongs to the one PDF it came from, and guessing it would produce a clean, confident, unverifiable quote.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
interoperability 6 fields · controlled vocabulary 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 10 concept tags on this paper, 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

semantic annotation gazetteer linked open data controlled vocabulary URI annotation claim gazetteer URI place ontological annotation datasets are joined by making everyone refer to the SAME IDENTIFIER: whenever a place is mentioned it is named by a shared gazetteer URI, and otherwise isolated datasets become implicitly joined into one interconnected graph with the gazetteers as its central backbone CONNECTIVITY THROUGH COMMON REFERENCES RATHER THAN A COMMON SCHEMA: the annotations are published separately from the data they annotate, as standoff markup, so no model is mandated for the data themselves and no constraint is put on how they are represented the word ANNOTATION is chosen for what it connotes: that the association is NOT to be taken as certain fact but as somebody - a human editor or an automated script - claiming a relation between a document and a place whether a term counts as ontological is settled SOCIALLY and not formally: the distinguishing property is a commonly understood meaning under a shared conceptualization, so the benefit claimed for Linked Data is a shared social understanding rather than machine-readability EVERY AUTOMATIC MATCH IS MARKED UNVERIFIED UNTIL A HUMAN ACTS ON IT, and the state is shown in the interface rather than stored quietly - grey until a user confirms or corrects it, then green a reference that cannot be resolved is EXPLICITLY FLAGGED as not identifiable rather than left blank or guessed, and several gazetteer matches may be attached at once when the reference is unclear or genuinely denotes more than one place each contribution to an annotation carries its contributor and its time, so an annotation becomes a sequence of interactions - a micro discussion thread - and an audit trail of additions and changes makes the version history inspectable and the document revertible the workflow's bottleneck is MEASURED rather than asserted: geo-resolution accounted for 2% of all user actions in the first workshop, and a redesign of the interface between workshops raised it to about 7% - an improvement the authors report while still calling it the bottleneck the two design choices credited with the tool's acceptance are stated as a pair: every automated step must always require human verification, AND wherever that verification is missing it must be displayed prominently - with the interface emphasising manual control while offering automated suggestions controlled vocabularies geo-annotation editorial control interoperability system-or-tool-building

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2017.1307303. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 5 · content_tags 5 · controls 1 · limitations 6 · mechanisms 9 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	semantic geo-annotation of texts and maps with gazetteer URIs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	system-or-tool-building Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: system-or-tool-building	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: datasets are joined by making everyone refer to the SAME IDENTIFIER: whenever a place is mentioned it is named by a shared gazetteer URI, and otherwise isolated datasets become implicitly joined into one interconnected graph with the gazetteers as its central backbone	`mechanisms[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 2026-08-16: A WORD-ORDER SCRAMBLE INSIDE THIS QUOTE. The staged text reads "We refer to this approach as connectivity -as opposed to connectivity through a through common references common schema-": the phrases 'through common references' and 'through a common schema' have been interleaved by the extraction. Read as: "We refer to this approach as connectivity THROUGH COMMON REFERENCES - as opposed to connectivity THROUGH A COMMON SCHEMA - because it doesn't mandate a specific model...". The quote is an exact substring of the staged file and the file is out of order here, not the tag. This is damage shape 5, for which no finder exists; it was caught by reading the span. also in: CONNECTIVITY THROUGH COMMON REFERENCES RATHER THAN A COMMON SCHEMA: the annotations are published separately from the data they annotate, as standoff markup, so no model is mandated for the data themselves and no constraint is put on how they are represented	`mechanisms[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the word ANNOTATION is chosen for what it connotes: that the association is NOT to be taken as certain fact but as somebody - a human editor or an automated script - claiming a relation between a document and a place	`mechanisms[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: whether a term counts as ontological is settled SOCIALLY and not formally: the distinguishing property is a commonly understood meaning under a shared conceptualization, so the benefit claimed for Linked Data is a shared social understanding rather than machine-readability	`mechanisms[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: EVERY AUTOMATIC MATCH IS MARKED UNVERIFIED UNTIL A HUMAN ACTS ON IT, and the state is shown in the interface rather than stored quietly - grey until a user confirms or corrects it, then green	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a reference that cannot be resolved is EXPLICITLY FLAGGED as not identifiable rather than left blank or guessed, and several gazetteer matches may be attached at once when the reference is unclear or genuinely denotes more than one place	`mechanisms[5]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 2026-08-16: A PAGE NUMBER IS SPLICED INTO THE MIDDLE OF THIS QUOTE. The staged text reads "associated with the user who contributed it, 14 and the time it was made" - the 14 is the page number, not part of the sentence. The FOOTNOTE guard did not catch it because it requires a CAPITALISED word after the digit, and this one is followed by 'and'. The span was kept rather than narrowed because the number sits mid-clause and cutting either side would lose half of what the tag rests on. also in: each contribution to an annotation carries its contributor and its time, so an annotation becomes a sequence of interactions - a micro discussion thread - and an audit trail of additions and changes makes the version history inspectable and the document revertible	`mechanisms[6]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the workflow's bottleneck is MEASURED rather than asserted: geo-resolution accounted for 2% of all user actions in the first workshop, and a redesign of the interface between workshops raised it to about 7% - an improvement the authors report while still calling it the bottleneck	`mechanisms[7]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the two design choices credited with the tool's acceptance are stated as a pair: every automated step must always require human verification, AND wherever that verification is missing it must be displayed prominently - with the interface emphasising manual control while offering automated suggestions	`mechanisms[8]`	0.85	the tagger's words
limitations	Geo-resolution stayed the productivity bottleneck of the workflow even after a UI redesign. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Gazetteers are so far the only controlled vocabulary the tool supports for semantic annotation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The tool was still unreleased at the time of writing, with public release only scheduled. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	An annotation is presented as somebody's claim, not as established fact. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any use of the annotations this tool produces: the authors state the association ought not to be considered certain fact, and that a human editor or an automated geo-parsing script is making a claim about the relation between a document and a place	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Whether the vocabulary is ontological is a social fact about a community, not a property of the data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim that this data is semantically interoperable: the authors endorse the point that whether a term is ontological is a purely social matter, not a technical or formal one	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The approach's success is credited to a shared vocabulary that already existed for that period and region. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any transfer of this method to another domain: the authors attribute the initial focus on classical antiquity to a suitable focused historical URI-based gazetteer already existing and being widely acknowledged among the scholarly community	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	the claim checked against contribution statistics recorded automatically during the workshops Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: an impression of how users behaved formed from watching them - the logged action counts are independent of the observers' recollection · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: annotation	`concepts[5]`		the paper's words
concepts	claim Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: claim	`concepts[6]`		the paper's words
concepts	gazetteer URI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gazetteer URI	`concepts[7]`		the paper's words
concepts	place Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: place	`concepts[8]`		the paper's words
concepts	ontological annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontological annotation	`concepts[9]`		the paper's words
senses	an annotation - AN ASSERTION OF AN INTERPRETATION, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT: the paper says the association ought not to be considered certain fact and that somebody - explicitly either a human editor or an automated geo-parsing script - is making a claim; the annotator's kind is part of what the annotation records Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	ontological annotation - DEFINED BY COMMUNITY AGREEMENT, NOT BY FORMALISM: formal annotations use formally defined terms, and ontological ones are those whose terminology has a commonly understood meaning according to a shared conceptualization - so the top of the hierarchy is a social condition, and the authors endorse the point that it is a purely social matter and not a technical or formal one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the benefit of Linked Data - A SHARED SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING, NOT MACHINE-READABILITY: the paper puts the value of semantic annotation in the shared vocabulary rather than in the data being machine-processable, which is the answer this project owes to the objection that formalising meaning loses what matters Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Recogito 1 (Simon et al. 2015) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Pundit (Grassi et al. 2012, 2013) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	annotation —is-a→ claim Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span calls annotation a conceptual METAPHOR for making a claim; is-a is loose. also in: annotation · claim	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	place —operationalised-as→ gazetteer URI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says one SHOULD refer to a place by a gazetteer URI; normative. also in: place · gazetteer URI	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Shared gazetteer URIs are what joins otherwise isolated datasets; the gazetteer becomes the backbone of the graph. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The tool stresses manual intervention and editorial control, to support curating quality data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Annotation had been restricted to the technically expert, and to tools that offered little interoperability. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	semantic annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic annotation	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	geo-annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: geo-annotation	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.