Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:19:57 -0700
- Thread-index: AcNhD6p/DNU7tcZrT7aBHgWmjiX7swABtK8w
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
My personal opinion is that this is an unsolvable problem especially by
RDF. However if you think you have a solution I have two "Turing tests"
that a proposed solution should be able to handle described at
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Eat right, Exercise, Die anyway.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:23 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML
> Really Extensible?
> Noting the articles from Tim Bray  and Jon Udell ,
> knowing as most here do that the winking and nudging over
> namespace semantic assignments is really just the next level
> of semantic assignment to XML productions in general, it
> seems that now is a good time to discuss means for this.
> I agree with Tim that XML is a name/label/structure system
> and as such, doesn't care much about this debate. However,
> that simply says the developer has to care, so we still have
> to face up to the symbol grounding problem elaborated in
> detail by Charles Peirce in his papers on semiotics over a
> hundred years ago and clarified in the works of John Sowa.
> Harnad  explains it satisfactorily in terms of AI
> approaches including combining connection systems (eg, neural
> netws) with symbol systems. All good background, but there
> are other approaches and we should explore these.
> In short, clearly namespaces enable composability at the
> syntactic level. Just as clearly, many combinations are
> meaningless. As Harnad says when defining systematicity:
> "The patterns of interconnections do not decompose, combine
> and recombine according to a formal syntax that can be given
> a systematic semantic interpretation."
> So in effect, we can create namespace aggregates which are
> not systematic. So via namespaces, any set of XML application
> productions (by which I mean, a production from HTML, from
> SVG, from X3D, or XSLT) can be combined and be syntactically
> How can one determine:
> 1. If a given combination is meaningful 2. How to discover
> that meaning 3. How to assign that combination or even a single
> production to a running piece of code
> Item three is where the rubber meets the road.
> a. Does RDF address these questions?
> b. Is it better for worse particulary for item 3
> than say using stylesheet assignments c. Are other
> approaches such as abstract
> object models as good or better than RDF for
> writing the rules of a semantically valid
> Next, is it desirable or workable that any arbitrary
> combination of XML productions from any language be
> meaningful? I think the answer here is no and leads back to 1.
> I think this an important topic because it touches on issues
> such as when should two application language working groups
> seek convergence, can we create XML application languages
> that don't set of IP tripwires by ensuring implementations
> based on IP aren't a part of the language definition, should
> we begin to classify semantically valid XML production
> combinations, and where in that will standardization impede
> innovation, is it really a good idea to use a standard
> namespace name to point to running code?
>  http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/11/SymbolGrounding
>  http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2003/08/11.html#a775
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>