W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2012

RE: additional issue-57 use case: polysemy

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:22:18 -0700
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194B0FA101@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I added a new use case
to the use case list and to the matrix

> Thanks to Larry Masinter for this one. I have no doubt distorted the
> use case description in trying to make it fit in with the comparison
> framework, so he is not to blame for any deficiencies in what is
> written.  Also the way I have filled in the matrix is somewhat
> arbitrary, and I welcome arguments for changing its matrix entries.

I wasn't arguing for a new use case, but for a coherent perspective for analysis. So the use case is fine, but its lack wasn't the problem.
There are two branches of analysis: using semantics and knowledge representation, and using communication theory.
Both of these are internally coherent. However, mixing them is, in general, not coherent .

If you start out talking about identification or denotation or semantics or meaning, then fine, but there's really no place in a description of semantics for a "protocol" (UDDP), since a protocol is an operation,  computational behavior whose behavior depends on the operation of the network, and not a mathematical function.     If you start out talking about protocols and messages and transmission of representations of state, then switching to a semantic theory leaves all of the context out.

(I think http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/AnotherSpin doesn't help and can't, it makes several unwarranted assumptions and doesn't even touch the temporal elements.)
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:22:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC