What characterizes pictures and text?
Identifieur interne :
000034 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus );
précédent :
000033;
suivant :
000035
What characterizes pictures and text?
Auteurs : Michael A. R. BiggsSource :
-
Literary and linguistic computing [ 0268-1145 ] ; 2004.
RBID : Pascal:05-0465010
Descripteurs français
English descriptors
Abstract
This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledygook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML (eXtensible Markup Language) specifications, e.g. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions.
Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)
Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.
| pA |
| A01 | 01 | 1 | | @0 0268-1145 |
|---|
| A03 | | 1 | | @0 Lit. linguist. comput. |
|---|
| A05 | | | | @2 19 |
|---|
| A06 | | | | @2 3 |
|---|
| A08 | 01 | 1 | ENG | @1 What characterizes pictures and text? |
|---|
| A09 | 01 | 1 | ENG | @1 Eighth Digital Resources for the Humanities (DRH) Conference 2003 |
|---|
| A11 | 01 | 1 | | @1 BIGGS (Michael A. R.) |
|---|
| A12 | 01 | 1 | | @1 BERNARD (Lou) @9 ed. |
|---|
| A12 | 02 | 1 | | @1 CHILDS (Peter) @9 ed. |
|---|
| A14 | 01 | | | @1 University of Hertfordshire @3 GBR @Z 1 aut. |
|---|
| A20 | | | | @1 265-272 |
|---|
| A21 | | | | @1 2004 |
|---|
| A23 | 01 | | | @0 ENG |
|---|
| A43 | 01 | | | @1 INIST @2 23967 @5 354000120183890020 |
|---|
| A44 | | | | @0 0000 @1 © 2005 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved. |
|---|
| A45 | | | | @0 15 ref. |
|---|
| A47 | 01 | 1 | | @0 05-0465010 |
|---|
| A60 | | | | @1 P @2 C |
|---|
| A61 | | | | @0 A |
|---|
| A64 | 01 | 1 | | @0 Literary and linguistic computing |
|---|
| A66 | 01 | | | @0 GBR |
|---|
| C01 | 01 | | ENG | @0 This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledygook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML (eXtensible Markup Language) specifications, e.g. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions. |
|---|
| C02 | 01 | X | | @0 001A01G03 |
|---|
| C02 | 02 | X | | @0 205 |
|---|
| C03 | 01 | X | FRE | @0 Texte @5 01 |
|---|
| C03 | 01 | X | ENG | @0 Text @5 01 |
|---|
| C03 | 01 | X | SPA | @0 Texto @5 01 |
|---|
| C03 | 02 | X | FRE | @0 Donnée textuelle @5 02 |
|---|
| C03 | 02 | X | ENG | @0 Textual data @5 02 |
|---|
| C03 | 02 | X | SPA | @0 Dato textual @5 02 |
|---|
| C03 | 03 | X | FRE | @0 Représentation graphique @5 03 |
|---|
| C03 | 03 | X | ENG | @0 Graphics @5 03 |
|---|
| C03 | 03 | X | SPA | @0 Grafo (curva) @5 03 |
|---|
| C03 | 04 | X | FRE | @0 Interprétation @5 04 |
|---|
| C03 | 04 | X | ENG | @0 Interpretation @5 04 |
|---|
| C03 | 04 | X | SPA | @0 Interpretación @5 04 |
|---|
| C03 | 05 | X | FRE | @0 Caractérisation @5 05 |
|---|
| C03 | 05 | X | ENG | @0 Characterization @5 05 |
|---|
| C03 | 05 | X | SPA | @0 Caracterización @5 05 |
|---|
| C03 | 06 | X | FRE | @0 Description @5 06 |
|---|
| C03 | 06 | X | ENG | @0 Description @5 06 |
|---|
| C03 | 06 | X | SPA | @0 Descripción @5 06 |
|---|
| C03 | 07 | X | FRE | @0 Langage description @5 07 |
|---|
| C03 | 07 | X | ENG | @0 Description language @5 07 |
|---|
| C03 | 07 | X | SPA | @0 Lenguaje descripción @5 07 |
|---|
| C03 | 08 | X | FRE | @0 Balisage (document) @2 563 @5 08 |
|---|
| C03 | 08 | X | ENG | @0 Markup @2 563 @5 08 |
|---|
| C03 | 08 | X | SPA | @0 Etiqueta @2 563 @5 08 |
|---|
| C03 | 09 | X | FRE | @0 TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) @2 NI @4 INC @5 27 |
|---|
| N21 | | | | @1 325 |
|---|
| N44 | 01 | | | @1 PSI |
|---|
| N82 | | | | @1 PSI |
|---|
|
|---|
| pR |
| A30 | 01 | 1 | ENG | @1 DRH 2003: Digital Resources for the Humanities. Conference @2 8 @3 Cheltenham GBR @4 2003-08-31 |
|---|
|
|---|
Format Inist (serveur)
| NO : | PASCAL 05-0465010 INIST |
|---|
| ET : | What characterizes pictures and text? |
|---|
| AU : | BIGGS (Michael A. R.); BERNARD (Lou); CHILDS (Peter) |
|---|
| AF : | University of Hertfordshire/Royaume-Uni (1 aut.) |
|---|
| DT : | Publication en série; Congrès; Niveau analytique |
|---|
| SO : | Literary and linguistic computing; ISSN 0268-1145; Royaume-Uni; Da. 2004; Vol. 19; No. 3; Pp. 265-272; Bibl. 15 ref. |
|---|
| LA : | Anglais |
|---|
| EA : | This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledygook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML (eXtensible Markup Language) specifications, e.g. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions. |
|---|
| CC : | 001A01G03; 205 |
|---|
| FD : | Texte; Donnée textuelle; Représentation graphique; Interprétation; Caractérisation; Description; Langage description; Balisage (document); TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) |
|---|
| ED : | Text; Textual data; Graphics; Interpretation; Characterization; Description; Description language; Markup |
|---|
| SD : | Texto; Dato textual; Grafo (curva); Interpretación; Caracterización; Descripción; Lenguaje descripción; Etiqueta |
|---|
| LO : | INIST-23967.354000120183890020 |
|---|
| ID : | 05-0465010 |
|---|
Links to Exploration step
Pascal:05-0465010
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">What characterizes pictures and text?</title>
<author><name sortKey="Biggs, Michael A R" sort="Biggs, Michael A R" uniqKey="Biggs M" first="Michael A. R." last="Biggs">Michael A. R. Biggs</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Hertfordshire</s1>
<s3>GBR</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">05-0465010</idno>
<date when="2004">2004</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 05-0465010 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:05-0465010</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000034</idno>
</publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">What characterizes pictures and text?</title>
<author><name sortKey="Biggs, Michael A R" sort="Biggs, Michael A R" uniqKey="Biggs M" first="Michael A. R." last="Biggs">Michael A. R. Biggs</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Hertfordshire</s1>
<s3>GBR</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14><series><title level="j" type="main">Literary and linguistic computing</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Lit. linguist. comput.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0268-1145</idno>
<imprint><date when="2004">2004</date>
</imprint><seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Literary and linguistic computing</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Lit. linguist. comput.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0268-1145</idno>
</seriesStmt><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Characterization</term>
<term>Description</term>
<term>Description language</term>
<term>Graphics</term>
<term>Interpretation</term>
<term>Markup</term>
<term>Text</term>
<term>Textual data</term>
</keywords><keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Texte</term>
<term>Donnée textuelle</term>
<term>Représentation graphique</term>
<term>Interprétation</term>
<term>Caractérisation</term>
<term>Description</term>
<term>Langage description</term>
<term>Balisage (document)</term>
<term>TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)</term>
</keywords><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledygook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML (eXtensible Markup Language) specifications, e.g. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions.</div>
</front><inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0268-1145</s0>
</fA01><fA03 i2="1"><s0>Lit. linguist. comput.</s0>
</fA03><fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>What characterizes pictures and text?</s1>
</fA08><fA09 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Eighth Digital Resources for the Humanities (DRH) Conference 2003</s1>
</fA09><fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>BIGGS (Michael A. R.)</s1>
</fA11><fA12 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>BERNARD (Lou)</s1>
<s9>ed.</s9>
</fA12><fA12 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>CHILDS (Peter)</s1>
<s9>ed.</s9>
</fA12><fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Hertfordshire</s1>
<s3>GBR</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</fA14><fA20><s1>265-272</s1>
</fA20><fA21><s1>2004</s1>
</fA21><fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23><fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>23967</s2>
<s5>354000120183890020</s5>
</fA43><fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2005 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44><fA45><s0>15 ref.</s0>
</fA45><fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>05-0465010</s0>
</fA47><fA60><s1>P</s1>
<s2>C</s2>
</fA60><fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Literary and linguistic computing</s0>
</fA64><fA66 i1="01"><s0>GBR</s0>
</fA66><fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledygook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML (eXtensible Markup Language) specifications, e.g. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions.</s0>
</fC01><fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>001A01G03</s0>
</fC02><fC02 i1="02" i2="X"><s0>205</s0>
</fC02><fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Texte</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Text</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Texto</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Donnée textuelle</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Textual data</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Dato textual</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Représentation graphique</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Graphics</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Grafo (curva)</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Interprétation</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Interpretation</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Interpretación</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Caractérisation</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Characterization</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Caracterización</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Description</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Description</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Descripción</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Langage description</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Description language</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Lenguaje descripción</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Balisage (document)</s0>
<s2>563</s2>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Markup</s0>
<s2>563</s2>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Etiqueta</s0>
<s2>563</s2>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03><fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s4>INC</s4>
<s5>27</s5>
</fC03><fN21><s1>325</s1>
</fN21><fN44 i1="01"><s1>PSI</s1>
</fN44><fN82><s1>PSI</s1>
</fN82><pR><fA30 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>DRH 2003: Digital Resources for the Humanities. Conference</s1>
<s2>8</s2>
<s3>Cheltenham GBR</s3>
<s4>2003-08-31</s4>
</fA30><server><NO>PASCAL 05-0465010 INIST</NO>
<ET>What characterizes pictures and text?</ET>
<AU>BIGGS (Michael A. R.); BERNARD (Lou); CHILDS (Peter)</AU>
<AF>University of Hertfordshire/Royaume-Uni (1 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Congrès; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Literary and linguistic computing; ISSN 0268-1145; Royaume-Uni; Da. 2004; Vol. 19; No. 3; Pp. 265-272; Bibl. 15 ref.</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledygook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML (eXtensible Markup Language) specifications, e.g. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions.</EA>
<CC>001A01G03; 205</CC>
<FD>Texte; Donnée textuelle; Représentation graphique; Interprétation; Caractérisation; Description; Langage description; Balisage (document); TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)</FD>
<ED>Text; Textual data; Graphics; Interpretation; Characterization; Description; Description language; Markup</ED>
<SD>Texto; Dato textual; Grafo (curva); Interpretación; Caracterización; Descripción; Lenguaje descripción; Etiqueta</SD>
<LO>INIST-23967.354000120183890020</LO>
<ID>05-0465010</ID>
</server>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Ticri/explor/TeiVM2/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000034 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000034 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Ticri
|area= TeiVM2
|flux= PascalFrancis
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= Pascal:05-0465010
|texte= What characterizes pictures and text?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31.
Data generation: Mon Oct 30 21:59:18 2017. Site generation: Sun Feb 11 23:16:06 2024 |  |
