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

URIs and XML Vocabularies As Code Systems (WAS RE: A multi-ste

• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: URIs and XML Vocabularies As Code Systems (WAS RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:39:55 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

So you imposed a code system on top of a code 
system and expected everyone to notice that 
different rules apply depending on the code 
system in effect?  

Namespaces are a code system (URIness for uniquifying) 
built over a code system (GI names in a domain vocabulary).
Problem is, XML GIs don't qualify fully as 
a code system either:  no rules for linguistic 
interpretation, just syntax and has-a.  No 
IS-A, no episodic rules, etc.  These have to 
come from other systems, so as long as we 
know that, we can make do.  

One solution is to do as the RDFers 
are saying and create IS-A rules as metadata. 
I don't think that solves all problems but 
it entirely depends on the types and contexts 
of communication. Humans use time and space 
episodically, (see Schank's MOPS), so predicate 
logic isn't quite enough for human semantics, but 
it is one tool.  Human KR needs more than 
predicate logic.  Yes, Paul, the SW isn't 
intended to be human KR, but it is possible 
that the SW isn't the last word on the subject.

Why URIs aren't "words":  if they were, they 
would be signs in a code system and sets of 
structural and linguistic rules would be 
available for building them into combinations 
or sentences.  In other words, one could 
construct "treatments".   The namespace rec 
is right insofar as they are a syntax device 
for disambiguating the codes expressed in 
the instance (one can sort name from name 
and know they are different signs), but they 
do not offer a linguistic rule for intent:  
why choose THIS code in this context from 
all other possible choices in this context, 
or why was THAT code not chosen.  Analysis 
of communication behavior requires analysis 
of the choices made.

Semantic noise comes of:

1.  Competence.  Is the code being used 
and interpreted correctly (in accordance 
with linguistic and structural rules)?

2.  What is emphasized in the treatment?

3.  What attitudes are conveyed to the 
receiver (eg, dominance, an example being 
Tim's insistence that he can tell 
whining from facts, thereby asserting a 
dominance relationship)

4.  What attitudes are held toward the 
message (does it have value, to whom, 
in what context).

<not_to_John>
Attitudes are predictors of behavior.  If 
you want Tim to fix it, approach him with 
the right attitude (an analysis of the message 
says he likes dominance, so obsequious might 
work).  If you don't care, don't bother.
On the other hand, a sign of planning behavior 
indicates a probability of action.  So the 
fact that he is here and making signs means 
he is willing to work the problem.  Maybe even 
wanting but still waiting.
</not_to_John>

len


From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

Tim Bray scripsit:

> I'm on the developer's side.  Looking back, the namespace of unqualified 
> attributes is just a goof in the namespaces REC.  I wonder if there's 
> any chance of fixing it?

I doubt it.

I think the Namespace REC got this right: the point of namespaced attributes
is for the equivalent of attribute architectures, and they just aren't the
same thing as plain ol' element-local attributes.

• Follow-Ups:
  • ANN: XML Schema of measurement units
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
• Previous by thread: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: ANN: XML Schema of measurement units
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread