- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:04:28 -0500
- To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Cc: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <p06230935c473383c0c06@[10.100.0.25]>
At 2:26 PM -0400 6/9/08, Al Gilman wrote: >[radically reducing distribution; please feel free to copy to anyone who >needs a copy] [I put it back on the public lists as I think its important to try to converge on terminology.] > >On 9 Jun 2008, at 11:16 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> >>At 1:03 AM -0400 6/9/08, Justin James wrote: >>>James - >>> >>>> I think you may have missed the point of my JavaScript example. It was >>>> just one way you could insert ARIA semantics into the DOM by flagging >>>> an HTML class or id, or for that matter, by any CSS selector. The >>>> example was not my recommendation for how it should always be done. >>> >>>Ah, gotcha, thanks! >>> >>>> One thing you could do is to help ensure that all of the ARIA >>>> semantics get rolled into HTML 5. >>> >>>I fully support this, and I will be looking out for it. I think that ARIA is >>>too important to be *not* rolled 100% into HTML. First, it eliminates many >>>of my gripes with HTML as a presentation layer for application development >>>(HTTP is still wholly inadequate for the task...), by finally (15 years too >>>late) providing a mechanism for AT systems to "get" HTML. Secondly, it >>>provides a way to get really darned close to the semantic Web ideal. >> >>As someone reading all this from the sidelines, this direction of >>discussion seems to me to have gone into left field. >> >>Can anyone briefly explain what is meant by "ARIA >><em>semantics</em>" (my emphasis), > >"This object has the focus," "this option is selected," etc. > >See, for example >http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-primer/#new_provisions OK, thanks. Just for the record, that isn't the way that the word is used in Semantic Web discussions. >>what CSS has got to do with semantics (in any sense), > >Layman 'sense' of the symbol 'semantics': > ><quote >cite="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics"> > >3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of >signs; especially : connotative meaning That's sufficiently general and bland to apply to almost anything. But you don't mean semantics which supports a notion of inference which can be performed by a machine, right? And in any case, I wouldn't have said that text color was semantic even in this sense. ></quote> > >>and what either of these is likely to do for the semantic Web? > >Dunno. "the semantic Web ideal" may refer to "making the web >more semantic (i.e. a less error-prone representation of meaning)." No, that's not what it means. See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/. And that's not what 'semantic' means, either: 'more semantic' doesn't mean 'more precise'. Imprecise languages have semantics too. >In that case, the beneficiary is the Web, not the Semantic Web. > >>Isnt CSS entirely about, well, graphic style? > >And what is the style about? Connotative meaning, quite often. I think not, most of the time, in fact: but certainly not in any sense of 'meaning' used in the context of talking about the SWeb. >Web 0.1: this text is clickable, is a hyperlink. > >Web 2.0: this <div>is a drop-down menu, but currently >collapsed. > >>I see nothing even slightly semantic in the question of whether >>some text items should be rendered in large red characters (say). > >Graphic artists and GUI designers have been violating that, with >results that they like, to the point that it is standards operating practice. > >Given the frequency with which facts like "this form field requires >an answer" or "the answer in this form field is invalid" is entrusted >to presentation properties such as a red color, there is meaning in forms, >that all users need, that is encoded in presentation properties in the >GUI look and feel. Meaning to human readers, maybe. But that's not what the SWeb is about. Also, I wonder how many of these graphic devices are anything close to being 'standard', in fact. I bet most GUI designers would rather resent being told what colors to use in order to conform to a W3C directive. (BTW, 'requires an answer' is most often encoded by an asterisk, in my experience.) >>If this is semantics, then we must be talking about entirely >>different notions of "semantic Web". > >Different? Probably yes. Entirely? That's a matter of >s/semantics/interpretation. Well, actually its a matter of public record: the term "semantic web" was introduced by the W3C, after all, and they have a reasonably clear meaning for it. > >>What is your "semantic Web ideal" ? > >Here's mine: > >That the semiotics of the Web be more productive. That the >media used on the web encode more kinds of meaning that >the speaker and hearer can beneficially share, in encodings/representations >that are efficient for the speaker and effective (low misunderstanding >rate) for the hearer. Interesting, but nothing at all to do with the SWeb project/goals. You are still talking about human/human communication here. The SWeb goal is to perform work without human intervention or communication being necessary. Perhaps 'inference web' would have been a better term, but we are stuck with 'semantic web' now. How about calling your goal the 'semiotic web'? (Half serious suggestion: it might catch on and be useful. The world needs both semiotics and semantics.) ------- Thanks for the feedback, as it reveals a profound difference between usages of the S-word. We will all get very confused if we don't keep these differences in mind. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 20:05:14 UTC