Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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? len From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@g...] On 2/24/06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@i...> wrote: <snip/> > 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...) <snip/> > 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?
|
