• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:23:24 -0600
• Cc: "Andrew S. Townley" <andrew.townley@b...>, xml-dev@l...
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mSJ+BdwM+Es8320FaUpjodWdiW84raCqLZ5G76RZVDxKfggVdLoTO+polmcT4jamvjeO6evy35/tDrTztaE5X7tNhEDtzMqTVyyII3/Ro/c9sWycz4N/yd1bnH7LoiCJmu9CdIDUkO/fHPb0C1nO3IWc46sMayySi+7ui6tu0WU=
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FEE3@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FEE3@h...>

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?

--
Peter Hunsberger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
    • From: Chris Burdess <d09@h...>

• References:
  • RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Next by Date: RE: Did Documents Win? No. Objects Just Couldn't GetTheir Act Together.
• Previous by thread: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Next by thread: Re: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread