In the Objects hub, the first issue we encountered was that Object is not a specified entity type in Recogito, in the same way as Place, Person or Event. Instead we decided to systematically tag all text strings referring to objects with the keyword ‘object’, along with characteristics such as ‘material’ and ‘colour’. We found that objects were often described in relation to places and people, and found Recogito’s ‘Relations’ feature extremely useful for mapping these relationships. However, we also found that texts often do not describe objects neatly. For example, it can be problematic to annotate objects in sentences such as “The images of Asclepius and of Health are of white marble, that of Zeus is of bronze” because three images are being referred to, made of two different materials, each of which relates to a different person. We did, however, find this exercise extremely useful in thinking about how existing frameworks might be applied to more effectively describe objects in a semantic way, as well as how Recogito itself might be improved to facilitate object-related annotations.
The people team was interested in how a researcher might easily make the distinction between mythological and ‘real’ figures in a program like Recogito. The team discussed the possibility of visualizing figure’s relative timelines/chronologies using ‘real’/linear time vs. relative/mythological time, and how those different timelines might be able to intersect.
Later in the afternoon, some of us visited the Benaki Museum of Greek Culture, one of several museums holding the collections of Antonis Benakis. This particular museum is arranged chronologically, displaying objects from prehistory through to the 20th century, including archaeological artefacts, religious art, paintings, and costume.