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.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | semantic geo-annotation of texts and maps with gazetteer URIs— “While Recogito 2 provides an online workspace for general-purpose document annotation, it is particularly well-suited for geo-annotation, i.e. annotating documents with references to gazetteers, and supports the annotation of both texts and images (e.g. digitized maps).” | |
| claim-type | method— “With Recogito 2, we aim to provide an environment for efficient semantic annotation—i.e. the task of enriching content with references to controlled vocabularies—in order to facilitate links between online data.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Beginning in February 2016, and supported by renewed funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, we therefore started to develop a new version of Recogito, redesigned from the bottom up, with the aim of establishing the technical infrastructure for an open, collaborative, generally usable, and useful, work environment.” | |
| mechanism | 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— “Pelagios advocates the idea that whenever you refer to a place in your data, you should do so using a gazetteer URI. How the place relates to that data may vary, and will generally depend on the type of data. For example, the place could be the find spot of a coin or an item in an archaeological database; it could be mentioned in a piece of… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | 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— “One core advantage of this model is that annotations can be published separately from the dataset they are annotating, as “standoff markup” (Thompson and McKelvie, 1997). We refer to this approach as connectivity —as opposed to connectivity through a through common references common schema—because it doesn’t mandate a specific model for the… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | 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— “On the one hand, annotation works as a suitable conceptual metaphor, since it carries the connotation that the association being made ought not to be considered certain fact; rather somebody (a human editor or an automated geo-parsing script) is making a claim that there is some relation between content x and place y.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | 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— “Ontological annotations, finally, are formal annotations where terminology has a commonly understood meaning according to a shared conceptualization. Oren et al. rightfully point out that whether a term is ontological or not is a purely social matter, not a technical, nor formal one. The benefit of the ontological—or semantic—annotation, and… | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | 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— “As a general policy, every automatic match remains marked as “unverified”—indicated using the colour grey—until a user either explicitly confirms its correctness, or manually changes it using the integrated gazetteer search (Fig.2 )—in both instances turning it green.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | 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— “It is also possible to explicitly flag a place as “not identifiable” (yellow), when no suitable gazetteer match could be found; or to add multiple gazetteer matches, when, for instance, the reference is unclear, or when the annotated phrase does indeed refer to multiple places at once.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | 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— “Each contribution to an annotation is associated with the user who contributed it, 14 and the time it was made. Since annotations generally consist of a sequence of different contributions and interactions (comments, replies, transcriptions, gazetteer matches, etc.), they can essentially function as “micro discussion threads” with multiple… [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | 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— “This was confirmed by the contribution statistics from the workshops: in the first workshop, geo-resolution actions accounted only for 2% of the total number of user actions. A redesign of the user interface between the first and the second workshop yielded noticeable improvement, raising the percentage of geo-resolutions relative to other… | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | 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— “Crucial to this approval were the fundamental design choices that we had identified initially, namely that: (i) every automated step—Named Entity Recognition, and automated matching of place names to gazetteer records—must always require human verification, and, whenever such verification was missing, this would be prominently displayed… | mechanisms[8] |
| extends | Recogito 1 (Simon et al. 2015)— “Unlike Recogito 1, Recogito 2 now supports a combination of free-text commentary and semantic annotations (URI-based references to terms in controlled vocabularies).” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Pundit (Grassi et al. 2012, 2013)— “However, Pundit confronts the user with the full breadth of technical terminology.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | 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— “On the one hand, annotation works as a suitable conceptual metaphor, since it carries the connotation that the association being made ought not to be considered certain fact; rather… | senses[0] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| control | the claim checked against contribution statistics recorded automatically during the workshops — held — rules out an impression of how users behaved formed from watching them - the logged action counts are independent of the observers' recollection Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| audit | annotation —is-a→ claim — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | place —operationalised-as→ gazetteer URI — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — 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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — 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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — 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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[1] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[6] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Geo-resolution stayed the productivity bottleneck of the workflow even after a UI redesign. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Gazetteers are so far the only controlled vocabulary the tool supports for semantic annotation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The tool was still unreleased at the time of writing, with public release only scheduled. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | An annotation is presented as somebody's claim, not as established fact. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Whether the vocabulary is ontological is a social fact about a community, not a property of the data. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The approach's success is credited to a shared vocabulary that already existed for that period and region. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Shared gazetteer URIs are what joins otherwise isolated datasets; the gazetteer becomes the backbone of the graph. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The tool stresses manual intervention and editorial control, to support curating quality data. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Annotation had been restricted to the technically expert, and to tools that offered little interoperability. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| definition | semantic annotation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | geo-annotation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| key-terms | semantic annotation, gazetteer, controlled vocabularies, geo-annotation, editorial control, interoperability |
| concept | annotation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | claim Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | gazetteer URI Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | place Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | ontological annotation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[9] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824