[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensi

• To: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>,"Bob Foster" <bob@o...>
• Subject: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:55:25 -0700
• Cc: "Bullard Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcNhIZlK+NWa1bh2Rze8+1W/Gzeg8QAAv8EA
• Thread-topic: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?

Your XML file will only contain 

<ApplicantEstimatedAmount>999</ApplicantEstimatedAmount>

which seems to me to be as devoid of semantics as they come. 

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Eat right, Exercise, Die anyway.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: Bob Foster
> Cc: Bullard Claude L (Len); xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is 
> XML Really Extensible?
> 
> <Quote>
> Why not leave meaning the province of humans, who sometimes 
> write programs to give an operational "meaning" to XML 
> documents? The meaning is not intrinsic to the document; only 
> the syntax is.
> </Quote>
> 
> I agree that by its nature, XML does not (and was never meant 
> to) capture rich semantics and meaning. But I do not agree that XML is
> *completely* devoid of semantics. 
> 
> Consider the following XML schema snippet:
> 
> <xsd:element  name="ApplicantEstimatedAmount" type="xsd:decimal"/>
>    <xsd:annotation>
>       <xsd:documentation>This is the amount that the 
> Applicant has requested for...[etc.]</xsd:documentation>
>    </xsd:annotation>
> 
> Can't one discern the meaning (at some level) of the element 
> above, through a combination of a rich (ISO/IEC 11179-based) 
> element name and a robust definition provided as 
> documentation? The rest would be up to semantic registries 
> such as ISO/IEC 11179 or the ISO Basic Semantic Register 
> (BSR[1]), and technologies such as RDF and OWL.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> 
> [1] http://www.diffuse.org/semantics.html#BSR
> 
> Bob Foster wrote:
> > 
> > > I agree with Tim that XML is a name/label/structure system and as 
> > > such, doesn't care much about this debate. However, that 
> simply says 
> > > the developer has to care, so we still have to face up to 
> the symbol 
> > > grounding problem elaborated in detail by Charles Peirce in his 
> > > papers on semiotics over a hundred years ago and clarified in the 
> > > works of John Sowa.  Harnad [3] explains it 
> satisfactorily in terms 
> > > of AI approaches including combining connection systems 
> (eg, neural 
> > > netws) with symbol systems.  All good background, but there are 
> > > other approaches and we should explore these.
> > 
> > Why do we have to face up to the symbol grounding problem? If I 
> > systematically replace "meaningful" with "valid" I can come up with 
> > solutions for namespace composability that are purely 
> syntactic. E.g., 
> > James Clark's NRL.
> > 
> > Why not leave meaning the province of humans, who sometimes write 
> > programs to give an operational "meaning" to XML documents? The 
> > meaning is not intrinsic to the document; only the syntax is.
> > 
> > > In short, clearly namespaces enable composability at the 
> syntactic 
> > > level.  Just as clearly, many combinations are meaningless.
> > 
> > If you say many combinations are invalid and will not be 
> accepted by 
> > some program, we have grounds for agreement. But if you 
> want to assert 
> > that combinations are meaningful that will not be accepted by any 
> > program, I wonder what is the point?
> > 
> > Truly puzzled but willing to learn.
> > 
> > Bob Foster
> > 
> > > As Harnad says
> > > when defining systematicity:
> > >
> > > "The patterns of interconnections do not decompose, combine and 
> > > recombine according to a formal syntax that can be given a 
> > > systematic semantic interpretation."
> > >
> > > So in effect, we can create namespace aggregates which are not 
> > > systematic. So via namespaces, any set of XML application 
> > > productions (by which I mean, a production from HTML, 
> from SVG, from 
> > > X3D, or XSLT) can be combined and be syntactically correct.
> > >
> > > How can one determine:
> > >
> > > 1.  If a given combination is meaningful 2.  How to discover that 
> > > meaning 3.  How to assign that combination or even a single
> > >     production to a running piece of code
> > >
> > > Item three is where the rubber meets the road.
> > >
> > > a.  Does RDF address these questions?
> > > b.  Is it better for worse particulary for item 3
> > >     than say using stylesheet assignments c.  Are other 
> approaches 
> > > such as abstract
> > >     object models as good or better than RDF for
> > >     writing the rules of a semantically valid
> > >     combination?
> > >
> > > Next, is it desirable or workable that any arbitrary 
> combination of 
> > > XML productions from any language be meaningful?  I think 
> the answer 
> > > here is no and leads back to 1.
> > >
> > > I think this an important topic because it touches on 
> issues such as 
> > > when should two application language working groups seek 
> > > convergence, can we create XML application languages that 
> don't set 
> > > of IP tripwires by ensuring implementations based on IP aren't a 
> > > part of the language definition, should we begin to classify 
> > > semantically valid XML production combinations, and where in that 
> > > will standardization impede innovation, is it really a 
> good idea to 
> > > use a standard namespace name to point to running code?
> > >
> > > len
> > >
> > > [1] http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/11/SymbolGrounding
> > > [2] http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2003/08/11.html#a775
> > > [3]
> > 
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad90.sgproblem.ht
> > ml
> > 
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by Date: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Previous by thread: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by thread: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread