[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: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:01:27 -0400
• Cc: Bob Foster <bob@o...>, "Bullard Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D167884A@R...>

Actually, I think the following EDI representation is even more devoid
of semantics:

ITA~C~999~~ZZ~~~381.02

I guess "devoid" is just a matter of semantics ;)

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> 
> 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>
> >

begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@b...
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard

• References:
  • RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• 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?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread