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

On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:07, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> 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 have no interest in theoretical discussions that are detached from application. 

>> 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.

Adoption trends, ergonomics, fit with the existing technology ecosystem, existence of migration paths, marketability, potential of network effects.

Best,
Richard




> 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 10:24:41 UTC