Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Arg, why is it that xml-dev is the only mailing list that I use that requires a "reply to all" to get a copy to the list? Other lists seem to work in the exact opposite fashion of xml-dev... In any case, I just privately sent to Simon the following: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@s...> responds: > Peter.Hunsberger@s... (Hunsberger, Peter) writes: > >If you're not going to have semantics then why do you need syntax ? > > It's not a question of whether things will have semantics - > even things supposedly without semantics tend to acquire > meaning. It's a question of what kind of value you get from > standardizing semantics. The question was somewhat rhetorical, but I am interested in this issue. Unfortunately, I think you're ducking the issue a bit; doesn't syntax always imply some level of standardized (common) semantics? If not, why bother with the syntax? If you and I are going to communicate I think we'll get further with muddled syntax than we will with muddled semantics? (Having very limited French and Spanish abilities I can attest that this has certainly been the case in some of my travels). > I see lots of value for standardizing a core syntax, and some > value for standardizing some semantics. I see negative > return on efforts to standardize semantics and semantic > mechanisms generally. > > (Locally, you're welcome to standardize all you want.) Well, there's the issue; locally you have to standardize at least to the extent that you and your direct partners agree on the semantics. However, with the Web it's never just local: when you exchange XML with someone you are exchanging semantics with everyone your partner has ever exchanged semantics with... (There's a long real life example of being forced into a complicated RDF learning curve back in the days of prestandardized RDF lurking behind this comment. Unfortunately, I suspect it is still covered by a NDA...) > The subject line of this message, though, suggests pretty > strongly that some folks see semantics as a way out of a > syntactic trap. I believe those folks are fooling themselves at best. Well that seems fair; having well defined semantics doesn't get you very far with out a way to exchange them. However, it seems to me that like it or not, you've already committed to standardized semantics just by defining syntax...?
|
