Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

> Define “strictly semantically clear”. Good luck!

Why don't we start with the following:

Message sender has some statements they want to communicate. They
encode their statements into the language. The encoding is sent. The
receiver examines the the encoding and constructs an understanding
consisting of some statements. Key is that the construction and
interpretation of the message are isolated events - the first
communication between the parties is via the message.

Now the parties meet and compare the statements intended with the
statements understood. Note that the parties might be humans or
machines, without prejudice.

Repeat.

If, reliably (which doesn't mean *always*, but does mean more often
then not) the comparison is favorable, then the messages are
semantically clear. The "strictly" word is superfluous.

We can design various protocols for doing the comparison, which does
not have to be a discussion. For example the message might specify
some actions and we can check whether the actions taken after
interpreting the message match the intention of the sender, or whether
the receiver has confidence enough in their understanding of the
message.

What we have seen is that for some of the messages being discussed in
this thread, there have been raised a number of concerns about whether
that process will work under various of the assumptions and assertions
made by the participants in the thread. My assessment is that, at the
moment, the messaging that has been proposed is not semantically
clear.

-Alan

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 09:48:00 UTC