Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
Hi John,
John Bottoms wrote:
Rich,
SGML consists of a grammar for the _expression_ of
grammars.
During the early days of the CALS initiative there was
discussion of tokenized version of a new DTD tag set.
It was
called Binary SGML or BSGML. It didn't get much
traction but
it allowed the reduction in size of the tags. One
probably
doesn't want to mess with the data that the tags
envelop. That
would fall under something like Markov models or some
codebook
approach.
You can find scraps of it on forums such as this:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200504/msg00303.html
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Networks
Concord,
MA 01742
T: 978-505-9878
RGC:> Thanks John, that's an
interesting tidbit of history I wasn't aware of. The same thread took me
to a discussion of "xml binary", which seems to have been a movement
with small following, but clearly useful for embedded appliances. Trading
xml event messages seems to have made the inter-enterprise data sharing work
rather well, even among different character sets and human languages. The
only application area that occurs to me for xml binary seems to be for embedded
intranets with ultra fast response times (are there any such applications in
public use?).
But I think the main compression value for
xml binary and sgml metalanguages is mostly in its linear compressive ability. The Kolmogorov Complexity work
centrally focuses on compressions that are more than linear, i.e., ability to
substitute an arbitrarily complex (linguistic?) model for a common phrase as
used in the data. The KC invariance theorem in my earlier post, in which
one language (i.e. one model of behavior in the data) MUST differ in size from
another language model ONLY by a constant factor, is a VERY illuminating
result.
For example, it explains how the stack of symbolic
frames we project into conversations among familiars can be modeled and
represented in layers. The notion of object-oriented context corresponds
nicely to each frame in the stack. The same notion might help formulate
methods for developing compression models.
Musingly,
-Rich
Rich Cooper wrote:
> Hi Ontologizers,
>
> I've been comparing and contrasting Popper's works against Kolmogorov
> complexity ideas. This is sure to be of interest to
linguistically
> inclined ontologizers:
>
>
> This is a snippet from a tutorial on Kolmogorov Complexity which I
found
> on the web somewhere and am reading next to Popper.
>
> It seems to me that this compression-based model of data applies
very
> well to linguistics ontologies, since language is compressed in so
very
> many ways. Curiously, I haven’t found any
psychological studies
> relating this to language behaviors, or to any kind of ontological
> behaviors. Does anyone know of such materials? What
are the jargon
> keywords needed to research that material by googling? Who
are the most
> fruitfully publishing authors?
>
> Suggestions appreciated,
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2