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

Alan,

On 14 Jun 2011, at 10:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> 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.

Google won't scrap schema.org because your thought experiment proved that it's not “semantically clear.”

I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.

But just to stay in the spirit of your proposal:

1. The sender may not care that certain receivers be able to understand their message
2. The message cannot strictly be the first communication -- there always has to be prior agreement on protocols, formats, languages, vocabularies
3. Both parties will already share certain context that is outside of the message, otherwise why would they be communicating
4. Depending on the value of the communication to the receiver, they may or may not be willing to go to certain lengths in order to interpret the message, including the application of heuristics, studying the sender's documentation, dereferencing their schema and applying reasoning etc
5. The receiver may want to use the information for purposes not intended by the sender

So this is all rather subjective and context-dependent. I'm extremely skeptical of generic claims about the “strict semantic clarity” of a certain way of publishing data, especially if it is claimed to be a binary black-and-white thing.

Best,
Richard




> 
> 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 18:19:46 UTC