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 >
