WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
makes clearer an important issue: Are we talking about logic or are we talking about communication?
I think I need to insist that if you are going to discuss "UDDP", that the "P" is significant: it is a protocol first, a computational method perhaps, but the results cannot be treated as "logic", because associations are generally _not_ persistent, uniform over time.
You can't switch back and forth from a communication model to a logic model and back again within the same analysis.
It isn't "misleading" to characterize what's going on as "communication", in fact it is essential, if you're going to have a protocol somewhere in the middle.
The fact that communication sometimes fails isn't "something bad" -- it's essential to modeling a communication protocol to understand how communication fails, and the fact that sometimes people publish things that are useless or total garbage is an important factor in creating a model of the semantic web.
The essential invention of the web was not "hyperlinks" (which we had for a decade before the web), but rather "404 not found" -- the idea that different authors could publish material that linked to the work of other authors, without coordination, and that failure was an anticipated and managed process.
I think the semantic web also needs a model that accounts for robustness.
(David also made some other notes in his reply to me that "the protocol is not determined by the language of the message" which I'll reply to independently.)