Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.217;
Message-ID: <537BA1C0.8060003@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:41:04 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
References: <53760BA6.60403@lojban.org>	<537B9635.4000805@lojban.org> <4J5q1o02W56Cr6M01J5sb1>
In-Reply-To: <4J5q1o02W56Cr6M01J5sb1>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On 5/20/2014 2:05 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Otherwise I again agree with Lojbab that first we need the stuff done.
> I'm not sure the current BPFK Sections in the wiki are a good place for
> finishing the baseline. I'd prefer one single document, e.g. "CLL,
> service edition, alpha version, only for BPFK and with lots of mistypes"
> rather than a bunch of mostly not-connected pages in the wiki.

The concept of the BPFK sections is to have a standard 
specification-type format, ideally supported with references to text 
and/or discussions of anything controversial.  CLL is not written as a 
specification - rather it was an explanatory document.  One chapter, the 
selma'o catalog near the end is a pared down version of the originally 
intended specification, but John Cowan couldn't figure out how to write 
such a document absent a dictionary, and an overview of the grammar.

Once CLL was done, the questions seemed to be of the sort that could 
only be answered by a document such as the BPFK sections (though various 
other intermediate products were envisioned to document the discussions 
and controversies - search the archives for the "elephant" which was 
John's version of such an intermediate.

I believe that most of what hasn't been documented at all, are the 
sections which have little controversy, as to what the status quo ante 
actually is (or which had seen little usage ante-BPFK, so no one knew 
whether there was controversy).

Having the language documented as a specification, makes it much easier 
to revise CLL as an explanation of the key elements of the specification 
(there is no need for CLL to have examples of every kind of sumti used 
as a termset, while arguably such would appear in the BPFK sections for 
termset cmavo showing the interaction of various elements.)

The other thing to bear in mind is that CLL is a book currently in 
publication.  If we don't have an agreed-upon replacement when we run 
out of copies, we will return to the state that existed a few months ago 
when Amazon.com ran out of copies.  The book is considered 
"out-of-print" (and many will therefore think that the language is as 
"dead" as Volapuk no matter how large the online community), and various 
profit-seekers advertise copies of the book for hundreds of dollars.

Thus CLL needs to be updated as a book to be published independently and 
possibly asynchronously of the formal language 
specification/configuration management process (which need not be 
concerned with issues like formatting, pagination, and indexing that are 
important in a book rather than a set of web pages)


lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.