- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:47:13 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, William Waites <ww@styx.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> 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