Re: One cheer for XML ...
Date: 29 Mar 2007 10:50:16 -0700
On Mar 29, 10:35 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:15 am, "DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_br..._at_yahoo.com>
> > [...]
> > 'Semantics' here simply means that a non-english speaker, or someone
> > unfamiliar with European geography, would be able to look at this mess
> > and say 'Oh! Placenames! Dates!' without actually understanding what
> > those tokens meant.
> Yeah, that doesn't really hold up, though. If they don't have
> a schema, they don't know what the semantics of the markers
> are. And two different people (or two different programs) are
> definitely going to do the markup in two different ways.
> If we are talking about a human reading the text, well,
> the human could read the original email just fine. The tags
> actually make that *harder* for the human.
All of which is true, and raises interesting questions. How can we integrate the markup tags with the rest of the schema? Indeed, should we? Many of the 'judgements' made by these annotators are probabilistic, while SQL (indeed relational) semantics are (naively expressed) boolean. Can we bridge that gap? Received on Thu Mar 29 2007 - 19:50:16 CEST