Re: Syntax and semantics

I believe that this summary is generally correct, though it is only the first
step in what the recipient of the message must do. I work on the assumption that
the recipient of the message must perform some processing upon it to derive
whatever his own particular use for that message might be. It is effectively an
implementation detail on the receiving node whether an immediate input to that
process is the message content itself, or some derived semantics or meaning
associated by the sender with that message, to which the recipient can be
pointed by the namespace mechanism. In any case, it is certain that the
recipient, in processing the message will often need to take account of the
sender's semantic understanding of its content, though the sender's intent will
rarely be the recipient's own final understanding of that message.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

Chris Angus wrote:

> I would suggest that it is not the semantics that must be
> carried by the message but rather sufficient means to allow an intended
> recipient of the message to identify the same mapping between the message
> and the meaning of the message as that used by the sender.  It would seem to
> me that namespaces are intended to provide the mechanism for the
> identification of the mapping (in order to uniquely establish identity)
> without (rightly I would suggest) being concerned with the form of the
> mapping.
>
> Chris Angus

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 12:08:15 UTC