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

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> 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.”

Richard, that wasn't the point. You mocked the idea that "semantically
clear" could be defined. I responded with an attempt.

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

We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread you will say
what *will* be useful for evaluating web technologies. Or do you think
they are above evaluation?

> But just to stay in the spirit of your proposal:

ah, good!

> 1. The sender may not care that certain receivers be able to understand their message

Not relevant to this piece of the thread. The goal was to have a go at
defining "semantically clear". But in the spirit of responding I will
grant you that some people may not care. However I'm pretty sure that
the people we care about using schema.org will care. There will be
others who use schema.org not to communicate but to try to game the
google ranking system, and for such people, whether there is a message
conveyed or not may not matter. However I don't think we are
interested in considering their needs

> 2. The message cannot strictly be the first communication -- there always has to be prior agreement on protocols, formats, languages, vocabularies

Granted. I don't think that this affects the substance of the
proposal, but if you say how it would I will try to address it.

> 3. Both parties will already share certain context that is outside of the message, otherwise why would they be communicating.

I have not said that they are intentionally communicating - that the
message was intended for an specific person. This removes the support
for the assumption of the first clause. But to address it: that they
will share a certain context outside the message may or may not
obtain. For instance sender may be a person, and receiver a machine,
and it's not clear what shared context they could have given the
current state of machine technology. However if you think the shared
context somehow undermines the proposal, please say how.

> 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

Again, this is outside the scope of my proposal, which in response to
your skepticism about whether "semantically clear" could be defined.

> 5. The receiver may want to use the information for purposes not intended by the sender

ditto.

> So this is all rather subjective and context-dependent.

You have not demonstrated subjectivity or context-dependency in my
proposal. However I will be interested if you attempt to.

> 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.

You may be skeptical that semantic clarity (again, I don't think
"strict" brings anything) is *relevant* in some or all cases.  I may
engage you on that issue separately. However I don't see that you have
succeeded in finding a flaw in my proposal for how one might go about
defining it operationally.

Regards,
Alan

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 00:08:18 UTC