<title>
Computer Theology </title>
The idea of
course is that we can readily see where the end of the title is, allowing us to
have the title expand on several lines if needed. While that is some progress,
what we would like to emphasize is the angle brackets around “title”. While
seemingly innocuous, this is very significant in a way that we will try to
explain, because it is the source of the cognition capabilities of successors
to the language. Bear with us, because we will go a bit technical here in hopes
of doing justice to the importance of the subject. We have not been able to
trace who had the idea of using the angle bracket notation; perhaps it is an
anonymous genius within the working groups of the International Standards
Organization (ISO), or perhaps our research has not been thorough enough. In
any case, we believe that we can interpret the thinking of the person who did
it, because the angle brackets are exactly the same brackets that are used for
what is called the Backus-Naur notation. Why is that important, you might ask?
Well, this notation is used to describe computer languages. For example, we can
say in the Backus-Naur notation, simplifying a little:
<document-title>
::= <title> <title-text> </title>
We realize this
line is perhaps awkward to read, as the “::=“ notation is rather arcane.
However, please bear with us for just a bit longer. What the Backus-Naur
notation has done for us is allowing further expression of the structure of our
document. What we previously said informally, namely “Here is the title of my
document,” now we have expressed formally. The difference is that while a
computer has difficulty understanding “Here is the title of my document,” for
reasons we will not explore at this point, it has no problem understanding
<document-title> ::= <title> <title-text> </title>. For
the computer, it means that a document title is what is found between the
<title> and </title> elements. What has thus been accomplished is
teaching the computer to think a little more like we do (lest we be misunderstood,
we need to emphasize here for the cognoscenti that we are purposely avoiding
the word meta-language to eschew debating its relationship to classification,
and that we are purposely attributing a morphological nature to angle brackets
to load them semantically). In other words, we elevated slightly the cognitive
level of the computer. However, we are not yet finished. Now, we can explain
the light of genius of our unknown inventor. What the Backus-Naur translates is
in fact what is called a grammar.
Yes, essentially the same grammar we have all learned at school, but the formal
version that computers understand. Now for example, using the same notation
that we have used for our document, we can describe grammatical elements (our
linguist readers will pardon us for the simplification):
<sentence>
::= <subject><verb><object>
With that
description at hand, we can parse sentences such as “John loves Mary,” or “The
bridge crosses the river.” Hopefully, now you see clearly that by using the
seemingly innocuous angle brackets, the International Standards Organization
committee has imparted the Standardized Generalized Markup Language with a
theoretical heritage. This will allow us, in time, to use the same language for
people (that is the grammatical heritage, dating back thousand of years) and
computers (that is the document markup heritage, dating back a few decades).
Before we go further, we cannot help noticing that our anonymous genius was
certainly aware of the publication of the seminal 1963 paper by Noam Chomsky
and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, The algebraic theory of context free
languages. This paper, for
the first time, united the traditional field of linguistics (Noam) with the new
field of computer science (Marcel-Paul); which is exactly what
the commonality of the angle brackets in the two domains expresses. To close
the loop of connections, one of the authors (Bertrand) published an article in Linguistic Inquiry just after one by
Noam Chomsky in 1978, and he had Marcel-Paul Schützenberger as his PhD jury president in 1977. Perhaps, in truth,
that was the origin of this book.
|