[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<Quote1>
I am not saying that given sufficient _other_ information, that a
program cannot so interpret the snippet ... for example, application
level semantics.
</Quote1>
Yes - I was actually thinking of "human-level" semantics; the ability of
a human to interpret the meaning of data based on its surrounding XML
tags.
<Quote2>
On the other hand, the XML Schema specification does not provide
such semantics.
</Quote2>
I beg to differ - and I'm sure it's because I am looking at semantics
from a different standpoint here. I respectfully acknowledge our
different viewpoints regarding semantics, and do not in any way think
that yours (or anyone else's here) is incorrect. Just that I view the
meaning of "semantics" very differently. I'll respectfully step aside
from this debate, so as not to muddy the waters.
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> > <Quote1>
> > XML Schema thus provides a form of semantics to the XML document, i.e.
> > that such element content is to be treated as a decimal number.
> > </Quote1>
> >
> > Yes - and in your opinion would the following XML snippet:
> >
> > <ApplicantEstimatedAmount>12.30</ApplicantEstimatedAmount>
> >
> > provide a form of semantics to the data - i.e. that the data represents
> > the estimated amount that an applicant requested, given that it occurs
> > in the context of - for example - a loan application? This added context
> > would therefore enhance the sematics provided by the
> > "ApplicantEstimatedAmount" tag to enable it to be interpreted as "the
> > amount that an applicant requested for a loan".
>
> I am not saying that given sufficient _other_ information, that a program
> cannot so interpret the snippet ... for example, application level
> semantics. On the other hand, the XML Schema specification does not provide
> such semantics.
>
> >
> > <Quote2>
> > It doesn't state what units, for example, the number is intended to
> > represent, e.g. 12.3 froggets, or 12.30 euros.
> > </Quote2>
> >
> > Yes - but what if it did? For example:
> >
> > <ApplicantEstimatedAmount
> > currencyCode="USD">12.30</ApplicantEstimatedAmount>
> >
>
> Sure, specifications can define semantics for XML. The RDF/OWL semantics do
> so for XML that conforms to the RDF/XML syntax. Writing a model theory is
> one way to formally define a particular semantics. Other semantics might be
> specified in the english language prose of a specification. That too is a
> semantics, just not one that machines do a great job of properly
> understanding. That why we still need human programmers to translate the
> semantics of a written specification into a (machine) application. Much of
> the idea behind creating machine processable ontologies etc. is that this
> allows generic programs, e.g. inference engines, to do more, just as
> computer languages greatly facilitate the porting of applications to
> different platforms, and even, in the case of a more comprehensive semantics
> such as is defined by the java virtual machine, enable applications to (very
> frequently) operate across platforms without the need for human tweaking of
> the application for a given platform/CPU.
>
> Jonathan
begin:vcard
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard
|
