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] Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

You better duck. ;-)  

A critique of Grice's Cooperative Principle says:

"For a taxonomy to be useful for our computational purposes, it should be 
based on functional classes that correspond to explicitly used  
information processing constraints and mechanisms.  These constraints 
must have operational definitions: definitions based on simple 
primitives that can be implemented in hardware.... divide pragmatic 
implicatures into two subclasses, direct and indirect, based on whether 
new assumptions are needed to interpret an utterance as relating to the 
previous conversation... the Cooperative Principle is real in some 
way beyond a possible role in learning, and inferences derive from 
it do occur in language...  Relavance arises from the nature of 
communication: a speaker demands resources from a hearer, creating 
an implication that what the speaker is saying is worthwhile for the 
hearer to attend to.  Relevance results from having a large enough 
effect on the hearer's cognitive environment with a small enough 
processing effort."  "Grice's Maxims: Do the Right Thing", Robert 
E. Frederking

which is suspiciously one of the earliest web maxims.  The use of the 
http verbs comes down to implications: making the act of using 
the network protocol imply the fewest facts possible, and that 
accords well with TAG decisions about resource retrieval.

So is it the case that the SOAP approach increases the implicatures 
of retrieving a resource?  Is it the case that good web service 
design whether REST or SOAP relies on making each implication 
assumed discoverable prior to the commitment to assuming 
responsibility for acquiring/learning the content?


From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@gmail.com]

On 2/24/06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
>  What I am still sorting out is if there
> is a clean separation of the pragmatic and the semantic layer.
> I sort of doubt it but I'm still learning.

Sure there is: the pragmatics layer is the set of symbols for which
*everyone* agrees on a single precise meaning.  The semantics layer is
everything else....

(Running and hiding...)

>  The point
> of pragmatics, I guess, is a formal means to establish a protocol
> of measures, aka, "right rock; wrong rock".

I sort of conceptualize it as the rules for how discovery is done on
semantics. Sounds sort of similar?


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

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