[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

• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:19:57 -0700
• Thread-index: AcNhD6p/DNU7tcZrT7aBHgWmjiX7swABtK8w
• Thread-topic: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?

My personal opinion is that this is an unsolvable problem especially by
RDF. However if you think you have a solution I have two "Turing tests"
that a proposed solution should be able to handle described at 
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/8/122029/2205

-- 
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: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:23 PM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML 
> Really Extensible?
> 
> Noting the articles from Tim Bray [1] and Jon Udell [2], 
> knowing as most here do that the winking and nudging over 
> namespace semantic assignments is really just the next level 
> of semantic assignment to XML productions in general, it 
> seems that now is a good time to discuss means for this.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> In short, clearly namespaces enable composability at the 
> syntactic level.  Just as clearly, many combinations are 
> meaningless.  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.sgpr
> oblem.html
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
> 
> 
> 

• 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: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by thread: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread