137 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. It should be defined inline. If you are using the img tag, that image should have semantic value to the content, which is why the alt attribute is required for validation. If the image is to be part of the layout or template, you should use a tag other than the img tag and assign the image as a CSS background to the element. In this case, the image has no semantic meaning and therefore doesn't require the alt attribute. I'm fairly certain that most screen readers would not even know that a CSS image exists.

      I believed this when I first read it, but changed my mind when I read this good rebuttal: https://hyp.is/f1ndKJ5eEeu_IBtubiLybA/stackoverflow.com/questions/640190/image-width-height-as-an-attribute-or-in-css

  2. Mar 2021
    1. The hierarchical structure of semantic fields can be mostly seen in hyponymy.

      Good explanation about semantic fields.

      I assume the same or an even stronger statement can be made about semantic classes (which to me are like more clear-cut, distinct semantic fields), then? 

    2. A hyponym is a word or phrase whose semantic field is more specific than its hypernym.
    1. Is this topic part of linguistics too? Or only semantics?

    2. A semantic class contains words that share a semantic feature.
    3. For example within nouns there are two sub classes, concrete nouns and abstract nouns.
    4. The concrete nouns include people, plants, animals, materials and objects while the abstract nouns refer to concepts such as qualities, actions, and processes.
    5. Semantic classes may intersect. The intersection of female and young can be girl.

      More examples are given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_feature:

      • 'female' + 'performer' = 'actress'
    6. (Not answered on this stub article)

      What, precisely, is the distinction/difference between a semantic class and a semantic field? At the very least, you would say that they are themselves both very much within the same semantic field.

      So, is a semantic class distinct from a semantic field in that semantic class is a more well-defined/clear-cut semantic field? And a semantic field is a more fluid, nebulous, not well-defined field (in the same sense as a magnetic field, which has no distinct boundary whatsoever, only a decay as you move further away from its source) ("semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other")?

      If so, could you even say that a semantic class is a kind of (hyponym) of semantic field?

      Maybe I should pose this question on a semantics forum.

    1. Some types exist as descriptions of objects, but not as tangible physical objects. One can show someone a particular bicycle, but cannot show someone, explicitly, the type "bicycle", as in "the bicycle is popular."
    2. The words type, concept, property, quality, feature and attribute (all used in describing things) tend to be used with different verbs. E.g. Suppose a rose bush is defined as a plant that is "thorny", "flowering" and "bushy". You might say a rose bush instantiates these three types, or embodies these three concepts, or exhibits these three properties, or possesses these three qualities, features or attributes.
    1. 'female' + 'performer' = 'actress'
    2. An individual semantic feature constitutes one component of a word's intention, which is the inherent sense or concept evoked.

      Would this be referring, then, to explicit meaning or implicit meaning -- or neither?

    3. The semantic features of a word can be notated using a binary feature notation common to the framework of componential analysis.[11] A semantic property is specified in square brackets and a plus or minus sign indicates the existence or non-existence of that property.
    1. Semantic class
    2. semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other
    3. The English word "man" used to mean "human being" exclusively, while today it predominantly means "adult male," but its semantic field still extends in some uses to the generic "human"
    4. Synonymy requires the sharing of a sememe or seme, but the semantic field is a larger area surrounding those.
    5. A general and intuitive description is that words in a semantic field are not necessarily synonymous, but are all used to talk about the same general phenomenon.
    6. A semantic field denotes a segment of reality symbolized by a set of related words. The words in a semantic field share a common semantic property
    7. grouped semantically (by meaning)
    1. semantic domain or semantic field

      What, then, is the difference between a semantic domain and a semantic field? The way they are used here, it's almost as if they are listing them in order to emphasis that they are synonyms ... but I'm not sure.

      From the later examples of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, however, I am pretty certain that semantic domain is quite different from (broader than) semantic field.

    2. For instance English has a domain ‘Rain’, which includes words such as rain, drizzle, downpour, raindrop, puddle.

      "rain" seems more like a semantic field — a group of very related or nearly synonymous words — than a semantic field.

      Esp. when you consider the later example of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, which are more like the sense of "field" that means (academic/scientific/etc.) discipline.

    3. For instance, in basketball there are many words that are specific to the sport. Free throw, court, half court, three pointer, and point guard are all terms that are specific to the sport of basketball. These words make very little sense when used outside of the semantic domain of basketball.

      But this example seems so different than the first example they gave, "rain", which seems more like a semantic field — a group of very related or nearly synonymous words.

    4. In lexicography a semantic domain or semantic field is defined as "an area of meaning and the words used to talk about it
    5. Semantic domains are the foundational concept for initial stages of vernacular dictionary building projects.
    1. is the capacity for a word or phrase to have multiple meanings, usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field.
    1. Usually when people are talking about code being semantically correct, they're referring to the code that accurately describes something.
    2. HTML elements have meaning. "Semantically correct" means that your elements mean what they are supposed to.
    3. Semantically correct usage of elements means that you use them for what they are meant to be used for.
    4. It means that you're calling something what it actually is.
    5. Another example: a list (<ul> or <ol>) should generally be used to group similar items (<li>). You could use a div for the group and a <span> for each item, and style each span to be on a separate line with a bullet point, and it might look the way you want. But "this is a list" conveys more information.
    6. The classic example is that if something is a table, it should contain rows and columns of data. To use that for layout is semantically incorrect - you're saying "this is a table" when it's not.
    7. Browsers can correctly apply your CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), describing how each type of content should look. You can offer alternative styles, or users can use their own; as long as you've labeled your elements semantically, rules like "I want headlines to be huge" will be usable.
    8. Screen readers for the blind can help them fill out a form more easily if the logical sections are broken into fieldsets with one legend for each one. A blind user can hear the legend text and decide, "oh, I can skip this section," just as a sighted user might do by reading it.
    9. Mobile phones can switch to a numeric keyboard when they see a form input of type="tel" (for telephone numbers).
    10. Knowing what your elements are lets browsers use sensible defaults for how they should look and behave. This means you have less customization work to do and are more likely to get consistent results in different browsers.
    11. All of this semantic labeling helps machines parse your content, which helps users.
    12. Fits the ideal behind HTML HTML stands for "HyperText Markup Language"; its purpose is to mark up, or label, your content. The more accurately you mark it up, the better. New elements are being introduced in HTML5 to more accurately label common web page parts, such as headers and footers.
  3. Feb 2021
    1. I use <b>s for the decorative portions of the layout because they’re purely decorative elements. There’s no content to strongly emphasize or to boldface, and semantically a <b> isn’t any better or worse than a <span>. It’s just a hook on which to hang some visual effects. And it’s shorter, so it minimizes page bloat (not that a few characters will make all that much of a difference). More to the point, the <b>’s complete lack of semantic meaning instantly flags it in the markup as being intentionally non-semantic. It is, in that meta sense, self-documenting.
  4. Jan 2021
    1. You can style a link to look button-like Perhaps some of the confusion between links and buttons is stuff like this: <img loading="lazy" src="https://i1.wp.com/css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-08-at-8.55.49-PM.png?resize=264%2C142&#038;ssl=1" alt="" class="wp-image-301534" width="264" height="142" data-recalc-dims="1" />Very cool “button” style from Katherine Kato. That certainly looks like a button! Everyone would call that a button. Even a design system would likely call that a button and perhaps have a class like .button { }. But! A thing you can click that says “Learn More” is very much a link, not a button. That’s completely fine, it’s just yet another reminder to use the semantically and functionally correct element.
  5. Dec 2020
  6. Nov 2020
    1. I've spent the last 3.5 years building a platform for "information applications". The key observation which prompted this was that hierarchical file systems didn't work well for organising information within an organisation.However, hierarchy itself is still incredibly valuable. People think in terms of hierarchies - it's just that they think in terms of multiple hierarchies and an item will almost always belong in more than one place in those hierarchies.If you allow users to describe items in the way which makes sense to them, and then search and browse by any of the terms they've used, then you've eliminated almost all the frustrations of a file system. In my experience of working with people building complex information applications, you need: * deep hierarchy for classifying things * shallow hierarchy for noting relationships (eg "parent company") * multi-values for every single field * controlled values (in our case by linking to other items wherever possible) Unfortunately, none of this stuff is done well by existing database systems. Which was annoying, because I had to write an object store.

      Impressed by this comment. It foreshadows what Roam would become:

      • People think in terms of items belonging to multiple hierarchies
      • If you allow users to describe items in a way that makes sense to them and allow them to search and browse by any of the terms they've used, you've solved many of the problems of existing file systems

      What you need to build a complex information system is:

      • Deep hierarchies for classifying things (overlapping hierarchies should be possible)
      • Shallow hierarchies for noting relationships (Roam does this with a flat structure)
      • Multi-values for every single field
      • Controlled values (e.g. linking to other items when possible)
    1. Semantically Annotated Content Opens Up Cost-Effective Opportunities: Search beyond keywords; Content aggregation beyond manual sifting through; Relationships discovery beyond human research.

      Benefits of semantic annotation

      1. Search beyond keywords
      2. Content aggregation
      3. Discovering relationships
  7. Oct 2020
  8. Sep 2020
    1. The versions must be compatible, so if a peerDependency is listed as 2.x, you can’t install 1.x or another version. It all follows semantic versioning.
    1. The fully styleable primitives that the web offers (e.g. <div>) are quite powerful, but they lack semantic meaning. This means that accessibility is often missing because assistive technology cannot make sense of the div soup that we use to implement our components.
    1. The benefit of using the <ul> (unordered list) element are plenty: it will stay a list outside the context of our page, for example in Safari Reader mode, it will show as a list when printed with stylesheet turned off, it will show as a list for people who use screenreaders, it is a list (screenreaders can announce things like ‘list, 3 items’).
  9. May 2020
  10. Apr 2020
    1. This graph view is the easiest possible mental model for RDF and is often used in easy-to-understand visual explanations
  11. Feb 2020
    1. The wiki can be used as a semantic networking tool, a way to construct meaningful connections between topics, ideas or concepts. A semantic network is composed of nodes (such as wiki pages ) with meaningful links (hyperlinks) connecting them. A semantic network of wikis can help learners to organize their ideas and to convey that organisation of ideas to others (Jonassen et al, 1999, p.165)

      semantic networking tool: a way to construct meaningful connections between topics, ideas or concepts. A semantic network is composed of nodes (such as wiki pages) with meaningful links (hyperlinks) connecting them. The pages are nodes the hyperlinks are the meaningful links. You can also see how important a concept is by the times it appears in other pages.s

  12. Jan 2020
  13. Dec 2019
    1. broaden the definition of a ‘researcher’ to include a molecular biologist and basic science researcher, and to widen the scope of research ethics

      In order to adapt to new contexts, policy diffusion often triggers such semantic drift of key concepts.

      Would be great to see that linked to the policy learning framework.

  14. Sep 2019
  15. Feb 2019
  16. Dec 2018
    1. A semantic treebank is a collection of natural language sentences annotated with a meaning representation. These resources use a formal representation of each sentence's semantic structure.
  17. Oct 2018
    1. Do neural networks dream of semantics?

      Neural networks in visual analysis, linguistics Knowledge graph applications

      1. Data integration,
      2. Visualization
      3. Exploratory search
      4. Question answering

      Future goals: neuro-symbolic integration (symbolic reasoning and machine learning)

    1. Intelligent agents the vision revisited

      Memex, 1945 (for storing individual memories) License + societal norms + interoperability

    1. Learning Expressive Ontological Concept Descriptions via Neural NetworksMARCO ROSPOCHERTheRoadLessTraveledTransforming a sentence into an axiom

      Building ontology from text: transforming a sentence into an axiom.

  18. Nov 2017
    1. An institution has implemented a learning management system (LMS). The LMS contains a learning object repository (LOR) that in some aspects is populated by all users across the world  who use the same LMS.  Each user is able to align his/her learning objects to the academic standards appropriate to that jurisdiction. Using CASE 1.0, the LMS is able to present the same learning objects to users in other jurisdictions while displaying the academic standards alignment for the other jurisdictions (associations).

      Sounds like part of the problem Vitrine technologie-éducation has been tackling with Ceres, a Learning Object Repository with a Semantic core.

  19. Apr 2017
    1. hat Velterop essentially does is to generalize the Wikipedia implementation of distributed contributions by linking it to the semantic web

      Fascinating. Mark this for followup.

  20. Mar 2017
  21. Feb 2017
  22. Aug 2016
  23. Jun 2016
    1. produce schema-aware writing tools that everyone can use to add new documents to a nascent semantic web

      That dream does live on. Since Vannevar’s 1945 article on the Memex, we’ve been dreaming of such tools. Our current tools are quite far from that dream.

    2. Annotation can help us weave that web of linked data.

      This pithy statement brings together all sorts of previous annotations. Would be neat to map them.

  24. Apr 2016
  25. Mar 2016
    1. Open data

      Sadly, there may not be much work on opening up data in Higher Education. For instance, there was only one panel at last year’s international Open Data Conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUtQBC4SqTU

      Looking at the interoperability of competency profiles, been wondering if it could be enhanced through use of Linked Open Data.

  26. Feb 2016
  27. Jan 2016
    1. Set Semantics¶ This tool is used to set semantics in EPUB files. Semantics are simply, links in the OPF file that identify certain locations in the book as having special meaning. You can use them to identify the foreword, dedication, cover, table of contents, etc. Simply choose the type of semantic information you want to specify and then select the location in the book the link should point to. This tool can be accessed via Tools->Set semantics.

      Though it’s described in such a simple way, there might be hidden power in adding these tags, especially when we bring eBooks to the Semantic Web. Though books are the prime example of a “Web of Documents”, they can also contribute to the “Web of Data”, if we enable them. It might take long, but it could happen.

  28. Dec 2015
    1. you can tag questions with difficulty level and Bloom’s Taxonomy level
    2. With SmartBooks, students can see the important content highlighted

      Like an algorithmic version of Hypothesis? Is McGraw-Hill part of the Coalition? Looks like it isn’t. Is it a “for us or against us” situation?

    1. personal note taking, peer review, copy editing, post publication discussion, journal clubs, classroom uses, automated classification, deep linking

      Useful list, almost a roadmap or set of scenarios. The last two might be especially intriguing, in view of the Semantic Web.

    2. deep linking

      Ah, yes! It may sound technical to some, but there’s something very useful about deep linking which can help fulfill Berners-Lee’s Semantic Web idea much more appropriately than what is currently available. Despite so many advances in Web publishing (and the growing interest in Linked Open Data), it’s often difficult to link directly to an online item of interest. In a way, Hypothesis almost allows readers to add anchor tags to an element so it can be used in a direct link.

    1. Anyone can say Anything

      The “Open World Assumption” is central to this post and to the actual shift in paradigm when it comes to moving from documents to data. People/institutions have an alleged interest in protecting the way their assets are described. Even libraries. The Open World Assumption makes it sound quite chaotic, to some ears. And claims that machine learning will solve everything tend not to help the unconvinced too much. Something to note is that this ability to say something about a third party’s resource connects really well with Web annotations (which do more than “add metadata” to those resources) and with the fact that no-cost access to some item of content isn’t the end of the openness.

  29. Nov 2015
    1. Les représentants de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) annoncèrent leur objectif de ramener le délai de traitement des documents à six semaines en moyenne

      C’était long, en 2002! Où en est la BnF, aujourd’hui? D’une certaine façon, ce résumé semble prédire la venue des données, la fédération des catalogues, etc. Pourtant, il semble demeurer de nombreux obstacles, malgré tout ce temps. Et si on pouvait annoter le Web directement?

    1. some kind of curated library

      Which is where OER catalogues (tied to the Semantic Web) may shine. Sure, they can require a lot of work. But this is precisely why they matter.

  30. Oct 2015
    1. why not annotate, say, the Eiffel Tower itself

      As long as it has some URI, it can be annotated. Any object in the world can be described through the Semantic Web. Especially with Linked Open Data.

    2. machine-readable, ‘semantic’ annotations.

      Waiting for those to be promoted, through Hypothesis and other Open Annotations platforms.

  31. Sep 2015
    1. cool-looking map

      Maps make a great case for SVG. There are some neat libraries and tools to play with SVG maps but, more importantly, maps make it easy to understand that an image can be semantic.

      A couple of weeks before Shepazu posted this, was playing with SVG maps of contemporary Africa’s political boundaries. (Especially those used on Wikipedia; including some which separate South Sudan.) Been teaching African Studies (on occasion) for years, and maps of the continent tend to become important quite quickly.

      Those SVG maps with which I started playing were pretty neat in several respects. The fact that they were vector drawings instead of bitmaps meant that they easily be resized without causing visual artifacts. More importantly, though, each country was drawn as a named outline, so it was possible to play with them as separate objects.

      One thing I was trying to do is create an animation which would show where each country fits in a region of the continent, using this United Nations geoscheme. Doing so, eventually noticed that Sudan and South Sudan had been classified as part of different regions, which is an interesting tidbit which could lead to useful classroom discussions.

      Haven’t retraced all the steps but, at some point, I’ve used a Public Domain map of Africa from Wikimedia Commons (itself based on another Public Domain map), and ended up creating a simple animated version using Tumult’s Hype commercial HTML5 editor.

      It’s flawed in many ways, but for someone with almost no background in this things, it’s a significant accomplishment.

      (Surely, the same could be done through SVG itself. Haven’t been able to learn how to do so.)

      Playing with those maps taught me quite a few things. For instance, the benefits of a well-tagged image. And some rudimentary notions of CSS-based animations. Or the limitations linked to selecting rectangular sections of an image (with a large overlap between Northern and Western Africa, for instance).

      Static Map of African Regions The experience also gave me all sorts of ideas. Such as annotating parts of a well-structured image. Or uses for Open Street Maps. Or ways to embed interactive content (including quizzes) in Open Textbooks.

      The key point, perhaps, and what led me to Schepers’s work (including this deeply insightful SVG-based presentation and interactive infographic about annotations) is that Open Standards can open up fascinating opportunities for learning.

      W3C Annotation Architecture proposal So nice to be working at a standards-happy learning technology non-profit!

  32. Aug 2015
    1. I feel that there is a great benefit to fixing this question at the spec level. Otherwise, what happens? I read a web page, I like it and I am going to annotate it as being a great one -- but first I have to find out whether the URI my browser is used, conceptually by the author of the page, to represent some abstract idea?
  33. Jun 2015
  34. Apr 2015
    1. Keeping type-maps separate from the events allows the user to edit, combine, or eliminate tags based on the application.

      I think that this type of approach will be necessary for tagging methods.

    2. n semi-structured tagging, users select tags from a tag hierarchy, but may add tags within the hierarchy as needed. By reusing existing tags, users gain the structural benefits of ontologies while still retaining the flexibility of open tagging

      Yes, I believe that this is the best compromise.

  35. Oct 2014
    1. Maybe the driver for semantic web data is humans trying to programmatically consume human-readable information, rather than the other way around?
    1. observational metadata is far more reliable than the stuff that human beings create for the purposes of having their documents found. It cuts through the marketing bullshit, the self-delusion, and the vocabulary collisions

      Read the whole essay it is worth the while...