- From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:11:51 -0700
- To: "HTML WG Public List" <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "Doug Jones" <doug_b_jones@mac.com>
- Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704081211hcb0b623idf9b3502eda5adbc@mail.gmail.com>
Reading what I have seen written on the "semantic web" has always left me with the feeling that something did not quite make sense, but could not put my finger on the cause. Between the chatter on this list, and the below referenced definition, the source of my unease finally came clear... On 4/8/07, Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@mac.com> wrote: > > [snip]*semantics*: The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with > meaning.[1] > > - Elements, attributes, and attribute values in HTML are defined (by > this specification) to have certain meanings (semantics).[2] > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#semantics0 > > The problem is that the above use of the term "semantics" blurs together the human and browser domains. What you might call "semantics" to a web browser is NOT the same as "semantics" to a human. In human writing (linguistics) the levels of abstraction are roughly: - Lexemes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexeme> - sequences of letters that make up words. - Syntax <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax> - sequences of words that make phrases. - Semantics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics> - the "meaning" derived from sequences of phrases. - Pragmatics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics> - the effect of context on "meaning". The web browser sees an HTML document in a somewhat similar fashion: - A lexical scanner converts sequences of characters into tokens. - A parser converts sequences of tokens into a DOM tree. - An interpreter converts a DOM tree into a visual representation and set of behaviors. - The interpretation is affected environmental factors (display size, installed fonts, preferred language, etc.). What counts as semantics to the web browser is quite different from what counts as semantics to a human. Browsers are essentially ignorant of human-level semantics. (Putting machine understandable human-level semantics into the web is an interesting goal, but - given that no one has yet shipped a HAL 9000 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000> - very hard.) Perhaps some of the writers about the "semantic web" meant browser and not human semantics, but I would bet this distinction is far from universally understood. Given that a web document is looked by a web browser (the means), and by a human (the end) - using the terms "semantics" in reference to web documents, but not relative to the end goal ... seems at least dubious. Better to use another another term - perhaps "well structured"? (There is something amusing about fuzzy semantics applied to the use of the word "semantic". Oh well.)
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2007 19:12:00 UTC