From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Jul 17 23:48:47 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakermmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.240.27])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1DuPQe-0005AC-EV
	for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:48:44 -0700
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [24.250.99.39])
          by lakermmtao12.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050718064836.BZXY10527.lakermmtao12.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]>
          for <llg-members@lojban.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:48:36 -0400
Message-ID: <42DB5132.1040507@lojban.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:50:26 -0400
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  llg-members@lojban.org
Subject: [llg-members] Re: Supplicatory Model: papri
References: <20050716010140.GU2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42D95380.802@lojban.org> <20050718044439.GE2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050718044439.GE2444@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 30
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org
X-list: llg-members

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 02:35:44PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> 
>>The upshot of all this was that cukta is used for a work, and
>>papri/selpapri is used for a page/volume.
> 
> 
> Wow.  Then the definition of cukta seems broken, because of:
> 
>     [x1 is a manifestation/container [a physical object or its
>     analogue] of a work/content, not necessarily using paper (=
>     selpapri)];
> 
> That seems to require it to be a physical thing. 

The "its analogue" was wording specifically intended to account for 
other media, including non-physical media.  As long as it contains a 
work, it can be considered a cukta.

 >If "cukta" is
> supposed to be "document", what would the x1 and x2 be for a web
> page?

le se cukta is the document; le cukta is the metaphorical "container". 
x2 would be the content, x1 would be any logical or physical copy of 
that content.

>>In a cukta, a numbered page or logical page is, as And suggested,
>>a cukta ke jvinu selci ja pagbu.  
> 
> I didn't see And suggest that anywhere, not that it matters.
> 
> It can't really be selci; the only indivisible unit of a book is a
> single character.

Arguable, especially depending on the content, but that's why I included 
pagbu as an alternative.  It is some kind of component unit, even if not 
an indivisible one.  A "page of a document" is not usually considered a 
complete document, but is implied to be a part of a whole.

>>The second problem with a web page as metaphorically based on book
>>pages is that in fact the web isn't really a single work, bound
>>together. 
> 
> That's what *I* said.
> 
>>There are unlinked web pages that aren't bound to
>>anything, and of course the entire mass is a multitude of works.
>>Nor is an individual website a selpapri.  In the context of
>>lojban.org as it has been, you have the tiki, the old wiki,
>>lojban.org, your mailing list archives, and who knows what else.
> 
> Well, I do.  Would you like a list?  :-)
> 
>>What would be the selpapri for any particular web-page-as papri,
>>given that a web page might not be part of a larger work.  It
>>isn't clear because the metaphor is flawed.
> 
> Indeed.  Note that this was xorxes' preference, not mine.
> 
>>It seems to me that the web is another example of a concept that
>>has occurred often, for which we do not have a good word - a
>>network with nodes.  
> 
> Erm, tcana?

It's a reasonable extension, I guess.  So a web page is a tcana of a 
web-cukta

>>I would find it easy to support a new gismu for the concept of a
>>network with nodes, leading to a web page as a logical node in a
>>particular network of stored information.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> That's good to know.  Thanks.  But isn't it tcana?

Looking at tcana, I can see that we did extend it to cover a network 
with nodes, but I admit to not having thought of "networks" of 
information as opposed to communication.  The more I think about it, the 
more I like cukta tcana, assuming you've figured out how to say "web", 
or at least that essence which distinguishes a web page from a physical 
page of text from a logical page in a PDF or Word document.

lojbab