Well, it is simple but not obvious (it is Pythonic).

Public Names unambiguously represent a *set* of articulated symbols and/or *sets* of articulated symbols, not a sequence. That’s why the protocol definition stipulates that 8-bit byte strings must be sorted lexicographycally to form Public Names.

“Why, for example, do you choose

[[[This is] not [a pipe]] painting]

rather than

[[[This] is not [a pipe]] is [a painting]]”

Because the first is non-dispersed, while the second is. The symbols “is” and “a” are redundant in the second example. I does not represent a non-dispersed index of the symbols from the original string.

As for the difference in articulation, well, it is up to the locutor to articulate what he means. So my example:

37:11:1:a,4:pipe,,12:4:This,2:is,,3:not,,8:painting,

and your (well-articulated as Public Names):

37:11:1:a,4:pipe,,11:2:is,3:not,,4:This,,8:painting,

in effect convey their difference in articulation. They do represent two different meanings expressed with the same set of symbols.

“I can’t tell whether I am wilfully misunderstanding or you are failing to express ideas that are clear to you.”

The later I suppose :-)

Regards,

[[[This is] not [a pipe]] painting]

rather than

[[[This] is not [a pipe]] is [a painting]]

I have a feeling I was looking for a deeper meaning than you were trying to express. It’s hard to see why you feel encapsulating the phrases as netstrings adds any semantic value at all. Surely the indentation says everything that needs to be said (you use Python, right?).

Yes, I have written about netstrings, and now you mention them I do remember reading the Public Names references. I don’t see what semantic value the netstring representations add, which is probably why I overlooked the significance of the integers: they are redundant in an indented representation, as any good Python programmer will intuitively realise.

You appear to be arguing that we should strive to represent meaning, but it isn’t obvious (to me) what meaning is represented by your articulations. I haven’t gone into the Semantic Web at all deeply, but I assumed from my readings that the significance of the (subject, object, predicate) representation was the ability to perform reasoning about collections of RDF data.

I can’t tell whether I am wilfully misunderstanding or you are failing to express ideas that are clear to you — where do you define “an articuation”?

“Are we to assume that the integers have been chosen for their specific values?”

No. But then, you did not read the definition of Public Names and apparently the netstring protocol is a not known to you (which is a bit strange given your level of interest in network programming).

“It seems to me that a concept can only be articulated accurately when it is undestood; to assume that the addition of numbers and structure assists the communication of meaning is, I believe, to misunderstand the nature of both communication and meaning. Articulation that fails to communicate is both empty and sterile.”

What Public Names enable a computer network application to do is precisely communicate articulated text in a way that preserve the articulation expressed by the locutor.

“I see no evidence that anything other than semantic gameplay has so far been expressed.”

Did you checkout the sources?

Please do so.

Laurent Szyster

[ceci n’est pas un idée]

The above is alleged to be “a uniform representation of the articulation above”. Are we to assume that the integers have been chosen for their specific values? That some other articulation would be represented had “3″ been replaced by “217″? That the “inner articulation” (you appear to be making up terminology more or less at random, so I feel free to do the same”) is a more accurate representation of the meaning than “[This] [is not] [a pipe]”?

It seems to me that a concept can only be articulated accurately when it is undestood; to assume that the addition of numbers and structure assists the communication of meaning is, I believe, to misunderstand the nature of both communication and meaning. Articulation that fails to communicate is both empty and sterile.

This effort, Allegra, unless tied to some concrete semantic, appears doomed to disappear up its own rear end. “Where’s the beef?”.

The trouble with blogging is that publication can be far too easily be mistaken for significance. Once the judgement of a third-party publisher with something to gain (or lose) by publication is removed it is far too easy to convince oneself that the significance of an idea and its publication can be equated. I see no evidence that anything other than semantic gameplay has so far been expressed.