[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I don't get this part of the thread. Semantics dont neccesarily have to
do with syntax and vice versa. Semantics can be serialized in syntax
and, as you seem to point out, syntax can be interpreted semantically
even if it didn't meant to.
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> The subject line of this message, though, suggests pretty strongly that
> some folks see semantics as a way out of a syntactic trap. I believe
> those folks are fooling themselves at best.
XML serializations of RDF based data do avoid one important syntactic
trap. I mean, because their syntax and extensibility mechanisms are
semantics-oriented, they are also uniform and thus predictable, offering
the ability to say anything about anything without having to invent a
new syntax (XML or other) for every new domain they need to describe.
Cheers,
Manos
|
