lei skami tanru pe ma'a

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx]

la xod cusku di'e

>But samselpla could refer to design for the motherboard, or a CAD design 
>for something unspecified

True, although the times I've seen it used it was
clear from context what it was meant. It is probably
impossible to give a complete and precise definition
with a simple lujvo.

>It would have to be x1 skami selpla be le skami pruce

Yes, selpla be _fi_ le skami pruce. The x2 place
is for the programmer. One could use the full
skami pruce selpla when there is a chance of
misunderstanding, and just selpla when the context
makes it clear. After all, "program" also has a
variety of meanings in English and yet usually
there is no need to be more specific.

>terjudri is a good concept, but on some technical levels, there is more to 
>the internet or tcp/ip than a collection of addresses or sites.

But do we need to have all that there is to it specified
within the lujvo? The best _technical_ name for the
Internet is probably {la internet}, which has also been
used quite a lot already, and of course has no descriptional
content whatsoever in Lojban.

> > > Software: tolmarji <aspect> skami (what's the word for
> > >"aspect"?)
> >
> > {pagbu}? {tcila}?
>
>Neither of these quite grasp the concept for me. Maybe su'u pagbu?
>Does the scope of su'u have to be marked by fu'e/fu'o? Help!

{su'u} works just like {nu}, it belongs to the same selmaho.
I'm not sure it helps here, but I don't really understand
what it means.

Why not just {pagbu}? What would be the difference
between the immaterial part of a computer and the
immaterial aspect of a computer?

>How about selsmuni?

I don't know. Anything with meaning is a selsmuni.
Are you saying that {skami} has two meanings (or
senses), the material sense and the immaterial sense,
so that software is a full skami in one sense
and hardware is a full skami in another sense?
Or are you saying that software and hardware are
two components of a full skami?

>Perhaps "software" is adequately covered by mucti minji and "information",
>and hardware can be covered by skami or skami minji (peripherals)?

Well, if you have {mucti minji} you may want to
use {marji minji} for balance. {minji} alone would
cover both.

> > > content: selcusku
> > > hypertext: to'e linji selcusku
> >
> > Maybe. What is the opposite of a line for connecting
> > some set of points? Another possibility could be
> > something like {vrici terjo'e selcusku}.
>
>I don't understand this.

"Variously connected text"? I just can't visualize
the kind of connections present in hypertext as the opposite
of a line, that's all. Maybe just {na'e linji}?

> > > WWW: selcusku nirna
>
>vrici velcusku selnirna?

VVV: vrici velcusku vasru ?

> > I like the Esperanto translation of WWW,
> > which is TTT. (Standing for Tut-Tera Teksajxo.)
>
>What does Tut-Tera Teksajxo mean?

Whole-Earth Web. Almost a word for word translation,
but what I like about it is that it keeps the three
equal letters silliness.

MMM: mulno munje m????

I very much doubt the Web would have gained the
entity it has as distinct from the Internet without
its wonderful name. Maybe that's why "TTT" has been
quite accepted in Esperanto, but there is no
particular name for it that I know of in Spanish,
for example. I would not bother to find it
a name in Lojban unless it was equally striking,
but that's just me.

>Data: 5
>Information, data in context: "5 is the square root of 25"
>Knowledge, info in context: the skill of finding square roots

Then {datni} sounds more like information, if you look
at its x2 and x3 places. Maybe something using {selci}
for data?

>Upon reflection perhaps these are sufficient: data = lei datni,
>information = lei fatci, knowledge = lei smuni

Probably you'd want all words with the same place
structure if they're supposed to contrast with
each other.

>Does selklesi mean superset?
>
>We have to distinguish between sets and meta, and membership.

Yes, {klesi} is for subsets and supersets, and {cmima} for
membership. I had never heard of "meta" in the context of
set theory.

>A is a superset of B: HTML 1.0 is a superset of HTML 2.0 (you get the idea)

I would have thought HTML 2.0 would be the superset!

>A is a member of B: HTML is a member of the set of markup languages
>A is meta to B: XML is meta to HTML

I'm not familiar with markup languages. What does it mean
that A is meta to B?

co'o mi'e xorxes