On Semantics

People like this commenter on Simon's blog drive me nuts enough to make me want to post about it.

you clearly do not understand the idea of a 'semantic' web. Using xml makes it possible to use that information on other places, you can include it in an xml document, like xhtml, using xlink to point to certain data elements. And another advantages: Your data is tagged. You have given it semantic meaning. [emphasis mine]

Please. As if <foo>bar</foo> has any more "semantic meaning" ^[1] than "foo": "bar". Symbols have meaning when some agent imparts meaning to them. I.e. something has meaning when some person or thing understands it to have a certain meaning. Just because something is "tagged" doesn't give that something any meaning. The tags have to be interpreted by some intelligence, that intelligence being either a person, or by proxy, code that a person has written to "understand" those tags by performing some action based on them. "foo":... can be interpreted just the same as <foo>...</foo> can. Get off your high horse.

(Incindentally, the epistemelogical need for unity of meaning, to me, is a very strong argument for God as the foundation of meaning. But that's a separate discussion.)

Footnotes:
[1]: this phrase irks the hell out of me as well. It's redundant. Only people who want to use more words to make themselves sound intelligent talk about "semantic meaning"

Permalink | 3 Comments | Tags: Json, Philosophy, XML | id 8170

14:17 (utc-6)
edited: 14:32 (utc-6)