OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Names As Types

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> The first turtle is the human
> who is the ultimate semantic processor

Wait, there's a first turtle? I thought the stack was turtles all the way  
down to a person.  Does it matter if the first turtle is a person?  Aren't  
all the turtles people who can choose turtle-hood???

I don't want to turn this into an "angels on the head of a pin" argument  
(or maybe I do).  But it could be argued that there's never any such thing  
as a shared language.  There are just languages that are shared enough for  
certain purposes.  Although we hone the degree to which our shared  
vocabularies allow us to communicate about the real world and our ideas,  
there's never a "buck stops here" moment where rules become reality and  
the description of the thing can truly replace the thing itself...

We can have a limited degree of absolute authority when we are alone.  All  
of us are authorities on our own private languages.  It's the principle of  
"king of all we survey".  And as long as we don't involve anyone else, we  
can maintain absolute authority over the correct interpretation of our own  
thoughts (just don't mind reality).  Once we involve someone else the  
rules change and we're back to turtles all the way down.

I'm probably mangling your metaphor, and I've almost certainly "lost it in  
the philosophy of meaningfulness".

People invent vocabulary every time they try to communicate.  It's what  
communication IS.  The fact that XML is a tool for representing  
vocabularies binds it to some crazily human ambiguity.

What does "DRM" stand for?  What does "WML" stand for?


On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:57:36 -0700, Bullard, Claude L (Len)  
<len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:

> Which means as the stack gets taller, the top turtle
> is break dancing to stay on top.
> This is fun. Can anyone here describe the hypothetical
> most stable turtle stack keeping in mind that losing it in the
> philosophy of meaningfulness is not being a clean
> clear thinking turtle? The first turtle is the human
> who is the ultimate semantic processor - the authority -
> so it means what you say it means and if you can't
> communicate your meaning, you are a fuzzy turtle.
> What is the ideal XML application language architecture?
> Is there such a thing?  Are we stuck in a world where
> all we can rely on is the syntax (the Perry Position)?
> Can one layer in the semantics cleanly and clearly
> in such a fashion that the techniques are sharable
> and the semantics are fully learnable or discoverable
> with emphasis on "learnable" because discovery
> infers one is uncertain whereas learning means one is
> just scheduled?
> len
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe@allette.com.au]
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) said:
>> So the bottom turtle is strictly syntax.  XML
>> has no application semantics.  This we know.
> My point is that the second turtle is missing!
> This is creating difficulties for the others.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>



Nathan Young
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@cisco.com


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS