The first sense is the one in which we speak of ourselves as reading newspapers, magazines, or anything else that, according to our skill and talents, is at once thoroughly intel­ligible to us. Such things may increase our store of informa­tion, but they cannot improve our understanding, for our understanding was equal to them before we started. Otherwise, we would have felt the shock of puzzlement and perplexity that comes from getting in over our depth-that is, if we were both alert and honest.

Sending body/payload in a GET request may cause some existing implementations to reject the request — while not prohibited by the specification, the semantics are undefined. It is better to just avoid sending payloads in GET requests.

Write less code, save time and code more efficiently with MJML’s semantic syntax.

Despite what some email marketers and developers will tell you, semantics in email do matter. Not only do they provide accessible hooks for navigating an email, they can provide fallback styles that help maintain the hierarchy of emails in the unfortunate event CSS isn’t loaded or supported.

Model theory recognizes and is intimately concerned with a duality: it examines semantical elements (meaning and truth) by means of syntactical elements (formulas and proofs) of a corresponding language

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.

it has more to do with semantics than euphony

For example, in the Dyirbal language, the morpheme balam marks each entity in its noun class with the semantic property of edibility,[8] and Burmese encodes the semantic property for the ability to cut or pierce. Encoding the functional property for transportation, housing, and speech are also attested in world languages.

Semantics: deals with the formal properties and interrelation of signs and symbols, without regard to meaning.

is the capacity for a word or phrase to have multiple meanings, usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field.

Just? The meaning of the word is the reason we used the word.

It means "You're about to talk about words, but words don't matter."

Because “open” may face a similar fate as befell “design” and “innovation,” terms that are alternatively inspiring and incomprehensible, both motivation and muddled jargon.

step :direct_debit

Since monads make semantics explicit for a kind of computation, they can also be used to implement convenient language features.

The intellectual cesspool of the inflation truthers

O that moral science were in as fair a way of improvement, that men would cease to be wolves to one another, and the human beings would at length learn what they now improperly call humanity!

Familiar interfaces borrow from well-established patterns. These should be used consistently within the interface to reinforce their meaning and purpose. This should be applied to functionality, behavior, editorial, and presentation. You should say the same things in the same way and users should be able to do the same things in the same way.

One of the primary tasks of engineers is to minimize complexity. JSX changes such a fundamental part (syntax and semantics of the language) that the complexity bubbles up to everything it touches. Pretty much every pipeline tool I've had to work with has become far more complex than necessary because of JSX. It affects AST parsers, it affects linters, it affects code coverage, it affects build systems. That tons and tons of additional code that I now need to wade through and mentally parse and ignore whenever I need to debug or want to contribute to a library that adds JSX support.

The important goal here is that if we're going to introduce different semantics between classes and function components, we need to know before calling them which semantics we're going to apply.

We want to improve this while keeping both the API and the semantics and behavior as Reactish as possible.

The worst answer I can imagine is the one Pope Gregory VII gave for refusing to let the Holy Scripture be translated out of Latin: “... [I]f it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error.”

In general, I'm unpersuaded by these arguments (learning curve is determined not just by unfamiliar syntax, but by unfamiliar semantics and APIs as well, and the frameworks in question excel at adding complexity in those areas).

Note that the point of JSON-LD is that it's just JSON, in this case using the schema.org context to interpret the values.

Apache Stanbol's main features are: Content Enhancement Services that add semantic information to “non-semantic” pieces of content. Reasoning Services that are able to retrieve additional semantic information about the content based on the semantic information retrieved via content enhancement. Knowledge Models Services that are used to define and manipulate the data models (e.g. ontologies) that are used to store the semantic information. Persistence Services that store (or cache) semantic information, i.e. enhanced content, entities, facts, and make it searchable.

direct usage from web applications (e.g. for tag extraction/suggestion; or text completion in search fields), 'smart' content workflows or email routing based on extracted entities, topics, etc.

Apache Stanbol provides a set of reusable components for semantic content management.

This graph view is the easiest possible mental model for RDF and is often used in easy-to-understand visual explanations

AI relies upon a bet. It is the bet that if you get your syntax (mechanism) right the semantics (meaning) will take care of itself. It is the hope that if computer engineers get the learning feedback process right, a new transhuman intellect will emerge.

In “Getting Real,” Barad proposes that “reality is sedimented out of the process ofmaking the world intelligible through certain practices and not others ...” (1998: 105). If,as Barad and other feminist researchers suggest, we are responsible for what exists, what isthe reality that current discourses and practices regarding new technologies makeintelligible, and what is excluded? To answer this question Barad argues that we need asimultaneous account of the relations of humans and nonhumansandof their asymmetriesand differences. This requires remembering that boundaries between humans and machinesare not naturally given but constructed, in particular historical ways and with particularsocial and material consequences. As Barad points out, boundaries are necessary for thecreation of meaning, and, for that very reason, are never innocent. Because the cuts impliedin boundary making are always agentially positioned rather than naturally occurring, andbecause boundaries have real consequences, she argues, “accountability is mandatory”(187). :We are responsible for the world in which we live not because it is an arbitraryconstruction of our choosing, but because it is sedimented out of particular practicesthat we have a role in shaping (1998: 102).The accountability involved is not, however, a matter of identifying authorship in anysimple sense, but rather a problem of understanding the effects of particular assemblages,and assessing the distributions, for better and worse, that they engender.

Text is not going away, but if we really want it to be understood and remembered, we should integrate it better with physical and emotional experience. This convergence may happen with the “physicalization” of the digital world, where digital experiences become part of our physical life.

What is missing is a space between the $( and the following (, to avoid the arithmetic expression syntax. The section on command substitution in the shell command language specification actually warns for that:

I regret that the documentation does not focus on what is most relevant; by focusing on a largely irrelevant implementation detail, we enlarge the importance of that implementation detail and obscure the importance of what makes a value type semantically useful. I dearly wish that all those articles explaining what “the stack” is would instead spend time explaining what exactly “copied by value” means and how misunderstanding or misusing “copy by value” can cause bugs.

Surely the most relevant fact about value types is not the implementation detail of how they are allocated, but rather the by-design semantic meaning of “value type”, namely that they are always copied “by value”.

For there are who read and yet neglect them; they read to remember the words, but are careless about knowing the meaning. It is plain we must set far above these the men who are not so retentive of the words, but see with the eyes of the heart into the heart of Scripture. Better than either of these, however, is the man who, when he wishes, can repeat the words, and at the same time correctly apprehends their meaning.