Remap ROV:pending-verification upon verification

[kevinsbarnard]

Coordinate with @hohonuuli first.

[hohonuuli]

Another thought. Instead of putting the verifier in the json, it might be better to just add a verified association to the observation: e.g verified | self | <verifier name>.

[hohonuuli]

We would, of course, still need to change <platform>:pending-verification to <platform>

[kevinsbarnard]

add a verified association to the observation

The tricky part here is that the verification is tied to the bounding box, of which there may be many for a single observation. I know that in practice, we are almost always doing 1 observation to 1 bounding box association, but that's not always the case (e.g. parts). I guess the question is: what do we want the verification to represent? Just the ID (observation), or also the bounding box coordinates (association)?

[hohonuuli]

we are almost always doing 1 observation to 1 bounding box association, but that's not always the case (e.g. parts).

My 2 cents is that any non-one-to-one relations should be considered a legacy usage at this point. Going forward we will avoid that.

Parts in VARS have been annotated using a part-of association. So this is would be the canonical usage

nectophore
|- part-of      | Nanomia | nil
`- bounding box | self    | { ... }

I guess the question is: what do we want the verification to represent?

Yeah. That's a discussion to have in the video lab. The simplest (and hence most likely case) is:

• If there's no bounding box. A verification means the observation has been verified.
• If there is a bounding box. A verification means both the observation and box are verified.