W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2007

Re: The meaning of "representation"

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:59:28 -0500
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0C357C2F.9F6A6EB8-ON852573A7.0072BCD5-852573A7.0072FE47@lotus.com>

Xiaoshu Wang wrote
> Second, information is embedded in a message, i..e, it is the 
> content of the message, yes?
> > [Noah Mendelsohn wrote]:
> >
> > No.  Assuming binary coding is used, the message is a 
> sequence of bits. It 
> > is presumed that the sender and receiver agree in advance on 
> the range of 
> > possible information values (my term, not Shannon's), that a 
> given message 
> > might convey;  each distinct message essentially selects one of those 
> > values.    From Shannon's 1948 paper [1]:
> > 
> I take the 'no' means that the message is not embedded?

Your original quote was that "information is embedded in a message."  I 
was saying "no" to that;  I don't believe it is best to think of 
information being "embedded" in a message.  Presuming that the sending and 
receiving parties share the necessary assumptions about encoding, messages 
>convey< or >transmit< information, I would think. 


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 20:58:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:54 UTC