[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Re: New Members, Board of Directors, other LogFest results
At 01:26 AM 7/26/02 +1000, Nick Nicholas wrote:
.i cu'u la lojbab.
>I just realized yesterday that Nora
>was supposed to do indexing for Nick's books, which she never did and I
>don't think any one else did, though I haven't looked lately.
I did the index for the brochure last year. I have not done an index
for the lessons, and honestly, my Lojban time has long since run out
(I haven't even written a research paper since January, and my own
research takes priority over Lojban). If someone wants to volunteer
to do it (never mind the LLG asking for it, I hereby ask for it),
then I am more than happy to negotiate some format whereby they mark
up the Docbook source in some way (even with just inserting
"#INDEX_THIS#" next to entries), and I convert it to Docbook
indexing; but I will not undertake to do the indexing myself.
We'll determine this weekend if Nora will have enough time to do this soon
enough. It doesn't sound difficult to meet your 'markup standards'.
If we get the Docbook marked up, is this conversion an exception to your
rant below of not having time for anything Lojbanic before November (if
even then)? Or does someone else need to get up to speed on Docbook in
order to put the book out before you can get to it?
Based on this comment, I am presuming that you consider the Docbook source
to be the document master and NOT the other versions.
Btw, indexing is *nasty*. Not intrinsically difficult (though you
have to remember a lot of state), but breath-takingly arbitrary; I
felt like taking a shower after doing the brochure index. Just so
you're warned. :-)
By all comments received, Nora did an adequate job on CLL, and I had the
impression that she rather enjoyed it. I'm not sure a lesson book needs to
be quite as comprehensive, but whoever does the job will be the one to decide.
I'm not going to otherwise comment on this thread, since anyone who's
been to a Logfest knows what I'd say anyway. :-| Except...
>>How complicated can a dictionnary spec be?
>I dunno. People seem to think we need something more than is being done,
>but there have been no articulated specifics.
Funny. I have distinct memories of spending two or three hours with
you and Nora in Fairfax in 2000 or 2001, drawing up, if not an
outright spec, at least the outline of one. I don't suppose there's
any chance of it being retrieved and posted, though...
Actually (assuming I know what you are referring to by this), it has been
sitting by her computer (more or less) ever since Nora wrote it down as
notes, along with all the keywording that you did (which I think Nora
entered, but this "spec" seems not to have been typed in - in any case it
will be available for discussion at LogFest).
I may not be organized or especially productive these days, but it is hard
for me to permanently lose pieces of paper pertaining to Lojban, since I
rarely throw things out. It is just a matter of remembering how deep in
the archives a given piece of paper is likely to be buried.
My apologies for not remembering this writeup, but I wasn't thinking of
work you had done here, but rather the criticism that has been directed on
the net.
And (apologies for upcoming rant) I'm serious about my Lojban time
having run out. There are revisions to the lessons I've been meaning
to do since April and haven't done yet. (Nothing drastic, thank God;
couple of minor corrections, and adding IPA.)
If we want to publish the book before you get to it (which seems likely),
do you have a specific list of changes/corrections, and do you wish to
delegate authority to someone to make them? After all, the membership
explicitly devolved complete editorial control to you at your request.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org