[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Your XML file will only contain
<ApplicantEstimatedAmount>999</ApplicantEstimatedAmount>
which seems to me to be as devoid of semantics as they come.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Eat right, Exercise, Die anyway.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: Bob Foster
> Cc: Bullard Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is
> XML Really Extensible?
>
> <Quote>
> Why not leave meaning the province of humans, who sometimes
> write programs to give an operational "meaning" to XML
> documents? The meaning is not intrinsic to the document; only
> the syntax is.
> </Quote>
>
> I agree that by its nature, XML does not (and was never meant
> to) capture rich semantics and meaning. But I do not agree that XML is
> *completely* devoid of semantics.
>
> Consider the following XML schema snippet:
>
> <xsd:element name="ApplicantEstimatedAmount" type="xsd:decimal"/>
> <xsd:annotation>
> <xsd:documentation>This is the amount that the
> Applicant has requested for...[etc.]</xsd:documentation>
> </xsd:annotation>
>
> Can't one discern the meaning (at some level) of the element
> above, through a combination of a rich (ISO/IEC 11179-based)
> element name and a robust definition provided as
> documentation? The rest would be up to semantic registries
> such as ISO/IEC 11179 or the ISO Basic Semantic Register
> (BSR[1]), and technologies such as RDF and OWL.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>
> [1] http://www.diffuse.org/semantics.html#BSR
>
> Bob Foster wrote:
> >
> > > 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 [3] 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.
> >
> > Why do we have to face up to the symbol grounding problem? If I
> > systematically replace "meaningful" with "valid" I can come up with
> > solutions for namespace composability that are purely
> syntactic. E.g.,
> > James Clark's NRL.
> >
> > Why not leave meaning the province of humans, who sometimes write
> > programs to give an operational "meaning" to XML documents? The
> > meaning is not intrinsic to the document; only the syntax is.
> >
> > > In short, clearly namespaces enable composability at the
> syntactic
> > > level. Just as clearly, many combinations are meaningless.
> >
> > If you say many combinations are invalid and will not be
> accepted by
> > some program, we have grounds for agreement. But if you
> want to assert
> > that combinations are meaningful that will not be accepted by any
> > program, I wonder what is the point?
> >
> > Truly puzzled but willing to learn.
> >
> > Bob Foster
> >
> > > 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 correct.
> > >
> > > 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
> > > combination?
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > len
> > >
> > > [1] http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/11/SymbolGrounding
> > > [2] http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2003/08/11.html#a775
> > > [3]
> >
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad90.sgproblem.ht
> > ml
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > 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>
>
|
