Optical Character Recognition is a Unicode block containing signal characters for OCR and MICR standards. == Block == == Subheadings == The Optical Character Recognition block has three informal subheadings (groupings) within its character collection: OCR-A, MICR, and OCR. === OCR-A === The OCR-A subheading contains six characters taken from the OCR-A font described in the ISO 1073-1:1976 standard: U+2440 ⑀ OCR HOOK, U+2441 ⑁ OCR CHAIR, U+2442 ⑂ OCR FORK, U+2443 ⑃ OCR INVERTED FORK, U+2444 ⑄ OCR BELT BUCKLE, and U+2445 ⑅ OCR BOW TIE. The OCR bow tie is given the informative alias "unique asterisk". The hook, chair and fork, in addition to a long vertical bar, are included in the most basic "numeric" implementation level of OCR-A, which includes digits but excludes letters and conventional punctuation. By contrast, the most basic implementation level of OCR-B instead includes the digits, plus sign, less-than sign, greater-than sign, long vertical bar and seven of the capital letters; as such, there are no characters specific to OCR-B in the Optical Character Recognition block. === MICR === The MICR subheading contains four punctuation characters for bank cheque identifiers, taken from the magnetic ink character recognition E-13B font (codified in the ISO 1004:1995 standard): U+2446 ⑆ OCR BRANCH BANK IDENTIFICATION, U+2447 ⑇ OCR AMOUNT OF CHECK, U+2448 ⑈ OCR DASH, and U+2449 ⑉ OCR CUSTOMER ACCOUNT NUMBER. The latter two characters are misnamed: their names were inadvertently switched when they were named in the 1993 (first) edition of ISO/IEC 10646, a mistake which had been present since Unicode 1.0.0. Although their formal names remain unchanged due to the Unicode stability policy, they both have corrected normative aliases: U+2448 ⑈ is MICR ON US SYMBOL, and U+2449 ⑉ is MICR DASH SYMBOL (the standard notes that "the Unicode character names include several misnomers"). These symbols had previously been encoded by the ISO-IR-98 encoding defined by ISO 2033:1983, in which they were simply named SYMBOL ONE through SYMBOL FOUR. All four characters have informative aliases in the Unicode charts: "transit", "amount", "on us", and "dash" respectively. === OCR === The OCR subheading consists of a single character: U+244A ⑊ OCR DOUBLE BACKSLASH. == History == The following Unicode-related documents record the purpose and process of defining specific characters in the Optical Character Recognition block:
Hildon
Hildon is an application framework originally developed for mobile devices (PDAs, mobile phones, etc.) running the Linux operating system as well as the Symbian operating system. The Symbian variant of Hildon was discontinued with the cancellation of Series 90. It was developed by Nokia for the Maemo operating system. It focuses on providing a finger-friendly interface. It is primarily a set of GTK extensions that provide mobile-device–oriented functionality, but also provides a desktop environment that includes a task navigator for opening and switching between programs, a control panel for user settings, and status bar, task bar and home applets. It is standard on the Maemo platform used by the Nokia Internet Tablets and the Nokia N900 smartphone. Hildon has also been selected as the framework for Ubuntu Mobile and Embedded Edition. Hildon was an early instance of a software platform for generic computing in a tablet device intended for internet consumption. But Nokia didn't commit to it as their only platform for their future mobile devices and the project competed against other in-house platforms. The strategic advantage of a modern platform was not exploited, being displaced by the Series 60, though its development is continued by the Maemo Leste project. == Components == The Hildon framework includes components that effectively provide a desktop environment. === Hildon Application Manager === Hildon Application Manager is the Hildon graphical package manager, it uses the Debian package management tools APT (Advanced Packaging Tool and dpkg) and provides a graphical interface for installing, updating and removing packages. It is a limited package manager, designed specifically for end-users, in that it doesn't directly offer the user access to system files and libraries. With the Diablo release of Maemo, Hildon Application Manager now supports "Seamless Software Update" (SSU), which implements a variety of features to allow system upgrades to be easily performed through it. === Hildon Control Panel === Hildon Control Panel is the user settings interface for Hildon. It provides simple access to control panels used to change system settings. === Hildon Desktop === Hildon Desktop is the primary UI component of Hildon, so makes up the bulk of what a user will see as "Hildon". It controls application launching and switching, general system control, and provides interfaces for task bar (application menu and task switcher), status bar (brightness and volume control), and home (internet radio and web search) applets. === Hildon Library === The Hildon library, originally developed by Nokia but since Maemo 5, developed by Igalia and Lanedo (who developed MaemoGTK+, the Maemo version of GTK+). It is a set of mobile specific GTK+ widgets for applications in Maemo. Up to Maemo 4, these widgets were designed for stylus usage. However, in Maemo 5, most widgets were deprecated and new widgets for direct finger manipulation were introduced, including a kinetic panning container.
Upper ontology
In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e
Discoverability
Discoverability is the degree to which something, especially a piece of content or information, can be found in a search of a file, database, or other information system. Discoverability is a concern in library and information science, many aspects of digital media, software and web development, and in marketing, since products and services cannot be used if people cannot find it or do not understand what it can be used for. In human-computer interaction the term is further used to describe the discoverability of interactions, features and interactive systems overall . Metadata, or "information about information", such as a book's title, a product's description, or a website's keywords, affects how discoverable something is on a database or online. Adding metadata to a product that is available online can make it easier for end users to find the product. For example, if a song file is made available online, making the title, band name, genre, year of release, and other pertinent information available in connection with this song means the file can be retrieved more easily. The organization of information through the implementation of alphabetical structures or the integration of content into search engines exemplifies strategies employed to enhance the discoverability of information. The concept of discoverability, while related to but distinct from accessibility and usability, which are other qualities that affect the usefulness of a piece of information, is a critical aspect of information retrieval. == Etymology == The concept of "discoverability" in an information science and online context is a loose borrowing from the concept of the similar name in the legal profession. In law, "discovery" is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. == Purpose == The usability of any piece of information directly relates to how discoverable it is, either in a "walled garden" database or on the open Internet. The quality of information available on this database or on the Internet depends upon the quality of the meta-information about each item, product, or service. In the case of a service, because of the emphasis placed on service reusability, opportunities should exist for reuse of this service. However, reuse is only possible if information is discoverable in the first place. To make items, products, and services discoverable, the process is as follows: Document the information about the item, product or service (the metadata) in a consistent manner. Store the documented information (metadata) in a searchable repository. while technically a human-searchable repository, such as a printed paper list would qualify, "searchable repository" is usually taken to mean a computer-searchable repository, such as a database that a human user can search using some type of search engine or "find" feature. Enable search for the documented information in an efficient manner. supports number 2, because while reading through a printed paper list by hand might be feasible in a theoretical sense, it is not time and cost-efficient in comparison with computer-based searching. Apart from increasing the reuse potential of the services, discoverability is also required to avoid development of solution logic that is already contained in an existing service. To design services that are not only discoverable but also provide interpretable information about their capabilities, the service discoverability principle provides guidelines that could be applied during the service-oriented analysis phase of the service delivery process. === Specific to digital media === In relation to audiovisual content, according to the meaning given by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for the purpose of its 2016 Discoverability Summit, discoverability can be summed up to the intrinsic ability of given content to "stand out of the lot", or to position itself so as to be easily found and discovered. A piece of audiovisual content can be a movie, a TV series, music, a book (eBook), an audio book or podcast. When audiovisual content such as a digital file for a TV show, movie, or song, is made available online, if the content is "tagged" with identifying information such as the names of the key artists (e.g., actors, directors and screenwriters for TV shows and movies; singers, musicians and record producers for songs) and the genres (for movies genres, music genres, etc.). When users interact with online content, algorithms typically determine what types of content the user is interested in, and then a computer program suggests "more like this", which is other content that the user may be interested in. Different websites and systems have different algorithms, but one approach, used by Amazon (company) for its online store, is to indicate to a user: "customers who bought x also bought y" (affinity analysis, collaborative filtering). This example is oriented around online purchasing behaviour, but an algorithm could also be programmed to provide suggestions based on other factors (e.g., searching, viewing, etc.). Discoverability is typically referred to in connection with search engines. A highly "discoverable" piece of content would appear at the top, or near the top of a user's search results. A related concept is the role of "recommendation engines", which give a user recommendations based on his/her previous online activity. Discoverability applies to computers and devices that can access the Internet, including various console video game systems and mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones. When producers make an effort to promote content (e.g., a TV show, film, song, or video game), they can use traditional marketing (billboards, TV ads, radio ads) and digital ads (pop-up ads, pre-roll ads, etc.), or a mix of traditional and digital marketing. Even before the user's intervention by searching for a certain content or type of content, discoverability is the prime factor which contributes to whether a piece of audiovisual content will be likely to be found in the various digital modes of content consumption. As of 2017, modes of searching include looking on Netflix for movies, Spotify for music, Audible for audio books, etc., although the concept can also more generally be applied to content found on Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, and other websites. It involves more than a content's mere presence on a given platform; it can involve associating this content with "keywords" (tags), search algorithms, positioning within different categories, metadata, etc. Thus, discoverability enables as much as it promotes. For audiovisual content broadcast or streamed on digital media using the Internet, discoverability includes the underlying concepts of information science and programming architecture, which are at the very foundation of the search for a specific product, information or content. === Human-Computer Interaction === In human–computer interaction (HCI), discoverability refers to the ability of users to perceive and comprehend a system, function, or input method upon encountering it, despite a lack of prior awareness or knowledge, whether through intentional effort or serendipitously . The concept was popularised by Don Norman, who framed it around whether users can determine what actions are possible and how to perform them . Discoverability is considered a precondition for learnability, though the two concepts are frequently conflated in the literature . == Applications == === Within a webpage === Within a specific webpage or software application ("app"), the discoverability of a feature, content or link depends on a range of factors, including the size, colour, highlighting features, and position within the page. When colour is used to communicate the importance of a feature or link, designers typically use other elements as well, such as shadows or bolding, for individuals, who cannot see certain colours. Just as traditional paper printing created other physical locations that stood out, such as being "above the fold" of a newspaper versus "below the fold", a web page or app's screenview may have certain locations that give features additional visibility to users, such as being right at the bottom of the web page or screen. The positional advantages or disadvantages of various locations depend on different cultures and languages (e.g., left to right vs. right to left). Some locations have become established, such as having toolbars at the top of a screen or webpage. Some designers have argued t
Information access
Information access is the freedom or ability to identify, obtain and make use of database or information effectively. There are various research efforts in information access for which the objective is to simplify and make it more effective for human users to access and further process large and unwieldy amounts of data and information. == Technology == Several technologies applicable to the general area are Information Retrieval, Text Mining, Machine Translation, and Text Categorisation. During discussions on free access to information as well as on information policy, information access is understood as concerning the insurance of free and closed access to information. Information access covers many issues including copyright, open source, privacy, and security. == Groups == Groups such as the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, Ralph Nader's Taxpayers Assets Project have advocated for free access to legal information. The vendor neutral citation movement in the legal field is working to ensure that courts will accept citations from cases on the web which do not have the traditional (copyrighted) page numbers from the West Publishing company. There is a worldwide Free Access to Law Movement which advocates free access to legal information. The Wired article "Who Owns The Law" is an introduction to the access to legal information issue. Postsecondary organizations such as K-12 work to share information. They feel it is a legal and moral obligation to provide access (including to people with disabilities or impairments) to information through the services and programs they offer. Some effects of charging for information access, such as literature searches for physicians, is studied in the article "Fee or Free: The Effect of Charging on Information Demand". In this study, a $5 charge resulted in a 77% decrease in searches.
Data item
A data item describes an atomic state of a particular object concerning a specific property at a certain time point. A collection of data items for the same object at the same time forms an object instance (or table row). Any type of complex information can be broken down to elementary data items (atomic state). Data items are identified by object (o), property (p) and time (t), while the value (v) is a function of o, p and t: v = F(o,p,t). Values typically are represented by symbols like numbers, texts, images, sounds or videos. Values are not necessarily atomic. A value's complexity depends on the complexity of the property and time component. When looking at databases or XML files, the object is usually identified by an object name or other type of object identifier, which is part of the "data". Properties are defined as columns (table row), properties (object instance) or tags (XML). Often, time is not explicitly expressed and is an attribute applying to the complete data set. Other data collections provide time on the instance level (time series), column level, or even attribute/property level.
Web data integration
Web data integration (WDI) is the process of aggregating and managing data from different websites into a single, homogeneous workflow. This process includes data access, transformation, mapping, quality assurance and fusion of data. Data that is sourced and structured from websites is referred to as "web data". WDI is an extension and specialization of data integration that views the web as a collection of heterogeneous databases. Data integration techniques in the context of the web, forms the foundation for businesses taking advantage of data available on the ever-increasing number of publicly-accessible websites. Corporate spending on this area amounted to about USD 2.5bn in 2017, and it is expected that by 2020 the market will reach almost USD 7bn.