Commentaires sur : Semantic Markdown Specifications

Par : Niko

Niko — Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:02:54 +0000

There is also this very simple RDFa syntax ported to MD:
https://github.com/sbmsuite/roundpin/wiki/Semantic-Markdown

Par : Niko

Niko — Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:55:49 +0000

You can have a look at SAM, which specifies Semantic Authoring Markup language
https://mbakeranalecta.github.io/sam/quickstart.html

Unfortunately it does not build up on MD but redefines all the formatting syntax, together with a basic templating syntax « a la moustache » (conditions, variables).

It is still interesting, specially the part about annotations and context, that are very similar to predicate and ontological context in RDF

Par : Björn Sackemark

Björn Sackemark — Tue, 30 Mar 2021 20:23:34 +0000

Agreed! Making a simple concept complex again is backwards. Gruber created Markdown to simplify the writing of HTML. It was intended to be an authoring language (which also is highly human-readable). A simple syntax for writing in plain text, which scripts in all languages can convert to HTML.

Semantic metadata is useful, but again, complexity increases for each additional feature.

I agree re. XML. Isn’t schemas already applicable to XML besides being designed for HTML?

Alternatively, you could be using JSON — for those who prefer C syntax and curly brackets over .…

(Or YAML; really the HTML to JSON’s XML…)
Don’t get me wrong. I applaud the effort here. I’ve been writing and thinking in Markdown for a decade or so.

Schemas—which are standardizing how products, news articles, people and more, are defined in the markup on the web—those are exciting too.

(As the FAANG companies have shown us, metadata is obviously useful and can be used for a lot of stuff.)

But remember DRY and especially KISS. Keeping things simple is important.

Don’t complicate solutions creates to simplify things. I can’t imagine how you’d be successful in doing that.

Par : Ivo

Ivo — Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:26:37 +0000

Yes, that’s much needed.
The applications are plenty.
Now the rise of tools such as RoamResearch, Obsidian, RenNote, Athens, and Logseq, not to name a few, amplifies the number of uses cases.

Par : Chris McGee

Chris McGee — Thu, 28 May 2020 14:36:14 +0000

> One could imagine that a semantic markdown parser relies on the same RDFa > Initial Context to interpret the « schema: » prefix without further declaration. But what about other ontologies ? we would need some kind of prefixes / vocab declaration somewhere in the document, just like in RDFa.

First, thank you for writing this up. I’m very excited at the possibilities of merging semantic web concepts with Markdown as a format that is both human readable (for the most part) and machine parseable.

One thing I value about Markdown is that everything is in plain sight, even if you have to scroll through the document. I’ve been trying to keep my markdown more readable using a technique for dealing with URL repetition. Here’s a quick example of a « footnote » in markdown.

Lorem ipsum [dolor sit] … Here we see the famous words « [dolor sit] » …

… rest of the document …

—
[dolor sit]: http://somewebsite.org/dolor_sit.html

I wonder if this mechanism could be applied to your schema examples to keep the individual semantic references short, but allowing someone not familiar with a specific schema to look it up. Meanwhile, if you are already familiar it just sits at the bottom of the document out of the way and repeated only once.

### Specifications Meeting {schema:Event}
* Date : _11/10_{schema:startDate}

… the rest of the document …

—
[schema]: http://schema.org
[rdfs]: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
… other schemas used in this document …

Par : more urgent jest

more urgent jest — Fri, 15 May 2020 07:54:09 +0000

i think you might find this interesting:

[SAM](https://mbakeranalecta.github.io/sam/index.html)

Par : more urgent jest

more urgent jest — Fri, 15 May 2020 07:50:54 +0000

you might find this interesting:

https://mbakeranalecta.github.io/sam/index.html

Par : Vernay Bruno

Vernay Bruno — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:40:35 +0000

I would have keep the same syntax as links [Berlin](Place) and [10/11](Date)
That maybe too simple.
And certainly if there is a link already, that would complicate obviously [Berlin](Place https://…/) as long as there is only a space in between it would be OK.

Also using some kind of « Front-Matter » to define the Schema used would be necessary I guess.

But that is just a random opinion, I am not involved in any of this. Thanks a lot for the attention you gave me already.

Par : Thomas Francart

Thomas Francart — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:38:27 +0000

Thanks – the whole point here is to find balance between syntax simplicity (with the assumption however that the writer is acustomed to structured data/annotation – otherwise we fallback to text-mining solutions to interpret the sentences written in plain text), and coverage of the use-cases described : annotating with an entity type, an entity URI, or describing an entity.
Do note that the proposed « semantic extensions » are based/inspired by other existing markdown extensions.
Please do suggest alternative syntaxes that you think would be more appropriate for a writer if you have any suggestions.

Par : Jonas Smedegaard

Jonas Smedegaard — Mon, 13 Apr 2020 10:46:57 +0000

Great post.

Yes, I also think that a good first step would be to implement this idea in Pandoc. More specifically as a Pandoc filter: https://pandoc.org/filters.html