|
Greg:
“How do you exclude assumed semantics?”
What is a satisfactory semantic for ‘semantic’? We imagine we understand it then default to syntax. We “assume”. Semantics default to systems. Rick’s examples demonstrates where those tradeoffs emerge in the structures we prefer given alternatives. Why div class=?
I’m not assuming semantics but qualifying them by asking why does the order <div class=warning have a higher frequency than <warning? My model: entanglement. Multiple systems/sources are being controlled or controlling the markup. The intensity of the semantic in the system is set by the use of the system, it’s behaviors over time and how those behaviors result in semantically coherent communications among system users. Semantic strength as intensity is fun because it is a simple scalar. Otherwise, it is amplitude.
Given <div class= (warning or note) is the probability of one of the members affected by the div? No. Only the probability of the set itself given the class and the class given the div.
To which systems are each of the members significant? Is the syntax or containment significant to the systems? Why that preferred structure?
Systems entanglement is a reasonable model.
Kurt: not quantum XML except insofar as features of XML map to quantum concepts. It is a model of systems phasing and the affect of it on communications. Consider the example from Raph Koster’s list about character and environment persistence. How much state maintenance is worth it? How much dynamic complexity can an observer observe before it becomes deconstructive interference? In games, this is not just a model of rendering but of game play itself and the choices game designers have to make to ensure a game is fun and coherent given multiple players. Coherence is a quality of game play, therefore, of transformations over time. As to the probability strength, it seems to me that it is not in the markup. It is in the process. The markup is the interference pattern.
len
-----Original Message-----
Fuzziness
is not only a feature of quantum mechanics, its a core feature of human
communication... and that fuzziness is what causes Roger's desire for
self-contained/processing-semantics-free and processing contexst-free documents
to break down. How do you exclude assumed semantics? On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> wrote: Oh, god, we're entering into the world of quantum
XML!!
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote: The concept analogizes semantic coherence to
interferometric visibility and
|