Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jon.Bosak@eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:53:11 -0700
| > Here are some examples of things that can provide semantics for XML
| > documents:
| > * Stylesheeets.
| Sorry to bring it up again, but I still think we should distinguish
| semantics from behaviour. Stylesheets *do not* provide semantics, they
| provide behaviour. Sure, how something behaves ought to be linked to
| what it means but it ain't the stylesheet that's providing the
Oh dear oh dear. Repeat this saying ten times before you go to bed
The meaning of a word is its use. (L. Wittgenstein)
This is where arguments about the meaning of meaning finally end up.
I think he was right, but no wonder the guy killed himself.
| Meaning/semantics is surely given by schemata that associate element
| types, etc with ontologies.
I agree in principle, but those ontologies at this point are, as far
as I know, completely dependent on natural languages for their own
meaning. It seems to me that the understanding of meaning by machines
can come only after we have agreed on a universal taxonomy of ideas
that transcends all the different assumptions that underly natural
language -- something like Roget's original system, but consisting of
language-independent primitives. I'm not holding my breath until we
see that. And in the absence of this semantic substrate, I think that
the only meaning we get is behavior and appearance, which the machines
can handle, and good old prose, which they can't.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)