Cart
|
[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 Extensib
 Dare Obasanjo wrote: > > Dare Obasanjo scripsit: > > > Agreed. XML is about syntax and nothing else. People who think > > otherwise have been misled by the XML hype of yesteryear. If you limit yourself to XML 1.0 as defined, this is true. I think people are generally talking about methods to define semantics for particular XML vocabularies, which is unquestionably possible. The idea that there is some sort of Universal Semantics for XML is akin to the idea that the Star Trek universal translator exists. [[ > > Every word that Tim Bray says about markup at > http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/11/SymbolGrounding > applies with exactly equal force to ordinary human-readable > natural language text. Yes, and we have ways of teaching humans what natural language text means. Do we have ways of teaching machines what natural language text means let alone markup tags. ]] There have been machine programs for natural language interpretation in use since the 1970s. The U.S. government has devoted an unknown, but known to be large, amount of $$$ to this problem. In any case "Babelfish" etc. are common. [[ Like I said in http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/8/122029/2205. To claim that one can do this means one has a technique where ... AND 2.) I can take a vanilla W3C XML Schema processor and pass it a schema with embedded Schematron assertions which it automatically learns how to use to validate an input document in addition to using the W3C XML Schema rules. ]] Perhaps that isn't possible (I've not given this any thought), but there certainly are other ways in which machines can "understand" in some sense, what text "means" in some sense. In the case of RDF, assuming the various namespace qualified vocabularies are defined in RDF Schema or OWL, then there certainly is a formal semantics which defines what the document means. Indeed you might not find that meaning useful, for your own tasks, but nonetheless, there is a meaning which may be useful to software which knows what to do with it (e.g. RDF and OWL agents). On the other hand if people are suggesting that RDF or OWL is intended to define some type of universal meaning for all XML documents, that is plain silly. The only meaning defined by RDF or OWL is specifically for RDF/XML documents i.e. a specific dialect of XML (a syntactic subset) for which there has been defined a formal semantics. These documents are specifically intended to be "understood" by software programs which have been programmed in accordance with (e.g. to "understand") this formal semantics. Such programs can "exchange meaning" by transmitting documents encoded in the RDF/XML syntax. Namespaces are essential to this particular technology -- not because there is no other way to do what XML Namespaces do, rather because these specifications are written requiring that all XML elements and attributes are XML Namespace qualified. Don't like it -- use another syntax, write another formal semantics (if you care) for that syntax, and teach your software how to understand your syntax. The fact that your software and syntax isn't RDF and doesn't use namespaces doesn't at all affect the software that does use RDF and is namespace aware. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
