Towards a semantics for XML markup

Abstract

Although XML Document Type Definitions provide a mechanism for specifying, in machine-readable form, the syntax of an XML markup language, there is no comparable mechanism for specifying the semantics of an XML vocabulary. That is, there is no way to characterize the meaning of XML markup so that the facts and relationships represented by the occurrence of XML constructs can be explicitly, comprehensively, and mechanically identified. This has serious practical and theoretical consequences. On the positive side, XML constructs can be assigned arbitrary semantics and used in application areas not foreseen by the original designers. On the less positive side, both content developers and application engineers must rely upon prose documentation, or, worse, conjectures about the intention of the markup language designer -a process that is time-consuming, error-prone, incomplete, and unverifiable, even when the language designer properly documents the language. In addition, the lack of a substantial body of research in markup semantics means that digital document processing is undertheorized as an engineering application area. Although there are some related projects underway (XML Schema, RDF, the Semantic Web) which provide relevant results, none of these projects directly and comprehensively address the core problems of XML markup semantics. This paper (i) summarizes the history of the concept of markup meaning, (ii) characterizes the specific problems that motivate the need for a formal semantics for XML and (iii) describes an ongoing research project -the BECHAMEL Markup Semantics Project -that is attempting to develop such a semantics.

Experience with the use of peritexts to support modeler-author communication in a structured-document system

“…[14] While we share that point of view, the "processing applications" we have in mind are very specific: document authoring. That is why we do not follow the same track as [14].…”

“…[14] While we share that point of view, the "processing applications" we have in mind are very specific: document authoring. That is why we do not follow the same track as [14]. In a way, we could describe our approach as trying to operationalize natural-language descriptions is such a way that they can support document creation.…”

“…Renear, Dubin, and Sperberg-McQueen [14] provide a historical background and a description of a specific project: BECHAMEL. Judging from their paper, the general premise is that natural-language descriptions are insufficient and must be complemented by a separate formal apparatus:…”

Context representation, transformation and comparison for ad hoc product data exchange

“…• Self-describing markup approach for describing semantics is imaginable [5] [26] for markup desingers. We cannot reply on markups to solve interoperability problems between different semantic communities such as SMEs.…”

El texto digital y la disyuntiva de las humanidades digitales

“…Las reglas definidas SGML/XML/TEI, además, ofrecen solo un vocabulario y una sintaxis, pero no una semántica para ese vocabulario (Renear et al, 2002). En este sentido, como señalan Buzzetti y Thaller (2012), "for embedded markup provides a data structure, but it does not beget a suitable data model", en la medida en que no hay "one-to-one correspondence between the logical form of a phrase and the structure of its semantic content".…”