Greg:

 

"How do you exclude assumed semantics?"

 

What is a satisfactory semantic for 'semantic'?  We imagine we understand it
then default to syntax.   We "assume".   Semantics default to systems.
Rick's examples demonstrates where those tradeoffs emerge in the structures
we prefer given alternatives.   Why div class=?

 

I'm not assuming semantics but qualifying them by asking why does the order
<div class=warning have a higher frequency than <warning?    My model:
entanglement.   Multiple systems/sources are being controlled or controlling
the markup.  The intensity of the semantic in the system is set by the use
of the system, it's behaviors over time and how those behaviors result in
semantically coherent communications among system users.   Semantic strength
as intensity is fun because it is a simple scalar.   Otherwise, it is
amplitude.

 

Given <div class= (warning or note) is the probability of one of the members
affected by the div?  No.  Only the probability of the set itself given the
class and the class given the div.

 

To which systems are each of the members significant?   Is the syntax or
containment significant to the systems?  Why that preferred structure?

 

Systems entanglement is a reasonable model.

 

Kurt:  not quantum XML except insofar as features of XML map to quantum
concepts.  It is a model of systems phasing and the affect of it on
communications.   Consider the example from Raph Koster's list about
character and environment persistence.   How much state maintenance is worth
it?   How much dynamic complexity can an observer observe before it becomes
deconstructive interference?  In games, this is not just a model of
rendering but of game play itself and the choices game designers have to
make to ensure a game is fun and coherent given multiple players.
Coherence is a quality of game play, therefore, of transformations over
time.   As to the probability strength, it seems to me that it is not in the
markup.  It is in the process.  The markup is the interference pattern.  

 

len

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hunt [mailto:greg@f...] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:43 AM
To: XML Developers List
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] What is declarative XML? (And what's not)

 

Fuzziness is not only a feature of quantum mechanics, its a core feature of
human communication... and that fuzziness is what causes Roger's desire for
self-contained/processing-semantics-free and processing contexst-free
documents to break down.  How do you exclude assumed semantics?
 
I'm also not convinced that Len is trying to be intelligible.  
 
Greg

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...> wrote:

Oh, god, we're entering into the world of quantum XML!!

Overall, however, I'm not sure this is the most accurate conceptual
metaphor. I'm much more inclined to see various potentially overlapping
models as being frames of reference in describing reality, in essence more
of a relativistic approach, with transformations acting as tensors mapping
completely or incompletely between these frames of reference.

The problem with contemporary computational semantics (RDF et al) is that
assertions are binary - there is absolutely nothing in RDF that can be used
to view assertions in a stochastic or fuzzy manner, which is one of the
fundamental characteristics of quantum systems. You can make a reasonably
strong case for being able to make logical inferences with RDF - this was
what it grew out of, of course. However, there's no formal mechanism in RDF
as it stands right now to be able to say "the probability or strength of
assertion X is 0.75". That's not to say that this couldn't be introduced,
mind you, and I'm not so sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, though the
processing becomes considerably more complex at that point once you do make
that step. 



Kurt Cagle
Managing Editor
http://xmlToday.org <http://xmltoday.org/> 



On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> wrote:

The concept analogizes semantic coherence to interferometric visibility and
semantic intensity to intent of communicative speech act as expressed in the
syntax.

Treat the name and label particles like wave functions where each element
has intensity.

What would the coherence/decoherence properties of RDF be contrasted to
HTML?  I think the coherence length of RDF statements would be better
because they are unentangled until related.


len


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php