Lists Home |
Date Index |
Your XML file will only contain
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: Bob Foster
> Cc: Bullard Claude L (Len); email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is
> XML Really Extensible?
> 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.
> 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:documentation>This is the amount that the
> Applicant has requested for...[etc.]</xsd:documentation>
> 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), and technologies such as RDF and OWL.
> Kind Regards,
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>  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  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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > >
> > >  http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/11/SymbolGrounding
> > >  http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2003/08/11.html#a775
> > > 
> > 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>