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

Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?

• From: davep <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:34:31 +0000

On 14/12/13 12:51, Steve Newcomb wrote:

Oops.  I haven't been talking about machine-machine interaction at all.
  So your point is well-taken, Dave.

While machine/machine interaction is very interesting and important, I
personally don't feel called in that direction, really.  I've been
interested in corporate memory, though -- the kind of memory that goes
away when a human being dies or retires.  Memory that may not even be
logical, that may be ambiguous, and that may help when the organization
(of whatever size or purpose) is confronted with challenges both old and
new.  In such cases, the original knower is no longer available, so
there's no possibility of direct interaction.  One-way communication
("one-way XML", as you say) is all there can be.

the examples being a company re-inventing X since Joe Blogs has left
who designed the original? A nominal variant on NIH?

For about 5 centuries now, book publishing has been largely one-way,
too.  We've come a remarkably long way since that phenomenon began, and
"science" -- literally, "knowing" -- has been especially favored by it.
  It's a promising avenue of endeavor, I think.  For example, when I
think about the 250 years since Darwin's astonishing book, and how the
whole of humanity is still struggling to adapt to that particular piece
of knowing, I am awed.  And Darwin himself hasn't been around to answer
questions for a very long time now.  It's been a matter of one-way
communication, almost all of it.  Wow!

And moving even more in that direction? A guess, but many on this list
will communicate more via electronics than face to face? Which reduces
if not removes the implicit feedback of a face to face discussion.

I admit that I have a perhaps-religious perspective.  I just don't
believe that machines "know" anything, in the classic sense of, uh,
intuiting them.  I see machines as the contrivances of creatures who
actually *do* know things -- or at least who *think* they do -- and who
use such contrivances as tools for expanding the scope of their knowings
(or, if you prefer, their thinkings that they know).

Take the best AI machine. At best it has some subset of the knowledge
captured from the 'teacher' via the k-capture system, so I guess I'd
agree with you. Machines are dumb, given this context for 'dumb'.






regards

--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Hans-Juergen Rennau <hrennau@yahoo.de>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Michael Sokolov <msokolov@safaribooksonline.com>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: davep <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: davep <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: davep <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: XML vocabulary for expressing constraints?
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>