From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 10 11:42:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 18:42:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8125 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 18:42:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 18:42:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 18:42:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.11.) id r.197.cdc4db3 (3956) for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <197.cdc4db3.2aaf9724@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:42:44 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_197.cdc4db3.2aaf9724_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_197.cdc4db3.2aaf9724_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 12:23:35 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes: << > ralcku >> I find my hackles up on this despite the fact that I find some of the arguments for it sensible -- that is, they ought to be more persuasive than they in fact are. I suspect that this is largely the (current -- or what was current when I was learning English) archetype of a book still functioning. Mayhap we need a more general definition of {cukta}, of which books (in the various present and past senses) are natural examples but which is open to future -- and perhaps present -- technologies. << maldzena reservations >> I suppose "fuddy-duddy" or "moss-back." I think this is unfair in the present (probably) transitional situation; the concerns are real from the point of view of the established paradigm and the new paradigm is not so clearly in place that the older one can be cavalierly dismissed. Even the notion of a cukta as a collection of documents is not a given -- most books can be viewed (and would be for the established paradigm) as single documents. << Beware of importing the malglico semantics of "book"! >> "Importing" is slanted. The semantics of "book" is forced on us; the question is just what that semantics is -- clearly more than pages and binding, but what more? Note that it does not (pace point 2 and, implicitly, 4) require cohesiveness (arguably the Bible, certainly some of the experimental "novels" of the 1950's and 60's). << 5. The linking of different hypertext documents follows the same behavior as linking to other locations in the same file, or other files written by the same author and residing on the same server. Whereas there is a conceptual difference between flipping a page in a book, and closing its cover and opening a different book, there is no conceptual distinction between following a link to a different location in the same file, and visiting a different "website". >> Granting the basic claim here, the established answer is that internally hyperlinked files are not books/cukta. In any case, this analogy does not help the claim that the web is a cukta. I think this case would be stronger if the analogy between different ways of supplementing information in one text were stressed -- hyperlink jumps with looking it up in a different codex. This may be pointing toward the kind of expansion that is needed for {cukta} beyond books (if that is the way to go -- a still largely unsupported point). << 6. Therefore the semantic distinction between different "websites" is not always conceptually clear. Hyperlinked documents can be considered the same document, albeit not the same file. Authorship is the only difference between a single work, and a compiled, annotated work. However, a cukta can have multiple authors, and be created over time. >> I presume the point is that it is unclear whether to count hyperlinked sites as one object (whatever we want to call it) or several. A book can certainly have many authors and be constructed over time (the Bible yet again), but in the end it is put together in a single package (even if several codices -- the OED always to hand. And a good one, too, since the latest version is hyperlinked all over the place). Robin: << ralcku could be a library. >> Bad move -- it gives away more than it gains (it doesn't gain anything, in fact, since no one previously thought of a library as any kind of book, so this is an analogy to an unknown analog). << I mean, *come* *on*. It means 'most important book'. Not only is that ridiculously ambigous *now*, it's pretty much guarnteed to become obsoleted over time. >> Well, so are books, but we stick with them while we have them and later we can laugh about the reliance we placed on them. I suspect that "most important" is meant here (as some things xod says later suggest) in the sense of "most encompassing." This is doubtful as well, but seems to point in some useful directions. In passing, one feature of the Web that is most unlike a book is that it is not a done thing, but a constantly changing (mostly growing) entity. Even at a given point, it is inherently unfinished, even more than a three-volume novel is at the end of volume 2. If we had a good word for those fungi like the one in northern Michigan that covers square miles and has been growing for millennia, it might make a good base. --part1_197.cdc4db3.2aaf9724_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 12:23:35 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes:

<<
ralcku

>>
I find my hackles up on this despite the fact that I find some of  the arguments for it  sensible -- that is, they ought to be more persuasive than they in fact are.  I suspect that this is largely the (current -- or what was current when I was learning English) archetype of a book still functioning.  Mayhap we need a more general definition of {cukta}, of which books (in the various present and past senses) are natural examples but which is open to future -- and perhaps present -- technologies.

<<
maldzena reservations
>>
I suppose "fuddy-duddy" or "moss-back."  I think this is unfair in the present (probably) transitional situation;  the concerns are real from the point of view of the established paradigm and the new paradigm is not so clearly in place that the older one can be cavalierly dismissed.  Even the notion of a cukta as a collection of documents is not a given  -- most books can be viewed (and would be for the established paradigm) as single documents.

<<
Beware
of importing the malglico semantics of "book"!
>>
"Importing" is slanted.  The semantics of "book" is forced on us; the question is just what that semantics is -- clearly more than pages and binding, but what more?  Note that it does not (pace point 2 and, implicitly, 4) require cohesiveness (arguably the Bible, certainly some of the experimental "novels" of the 1950's and 60's).

<<
5. The linking of different hypertext documents follows the same
behavior as linking to other locations in the same file, or other files
written by the same author and residing on the same server. Whereas there
is a conceptual difference between flipping a page in a book, and closing
its cover and opening a different book, there is no conceptual distinction
between following a link to a different location in the same file, and
visiting a different "website".
>>
Granting the basic claim here, the established answer is that internally hyperlinked files are not books/cukta.  In any case, this analogy does not help the claim that the web is a cukta.
I think this case would be stronger if the analogy between different ways of supplementing information in one text were stressed -- hyperlink jumps with looking it up in a different codex.  This may be pointing toward the kind of expansion that is needed for {cukta} beyond books (if that is the way to go -- a still largely unsupported point).

<<
   6. Therefore the semantic distinction between different "websites" is
not always conceptually clear. Hyperlinked documents can be considered the
same document, albeit not the same file. Authorship is the only difference
between a single work, and a compiled, annotated work. However, a cukta
can have multiple authors, and be created over time.
>>

I presume the point is that it is unclear whether to count hyperlinked sites as one object (whatever we want to call it) or several.  A book can certainly have many authors and be constructed over time (the Bible yet again), but in the end it is put together in a single package (even if several codices -- the OED always to hand.  And a good one, too, since the latest version is hyperlinked all over the place). 
Robin:
<<
ralcku could be a library. 
>>
Bad move -- it gives away more than it gains (it doesn't gain anything, in fact, since no one previously thought of a library as any kind of book, so this is an analogy to an unknown analog). 

<<
I mean, *come* *on*.  It means 'most important book'.  Not only is that
ridiculously ambigous *now*, it's pretty much guarnteed to become
obsoleted over time.
>>
Well, so are books, but we stick with them while we have them and later we can laugh about the reliance we placed on them.  I suspect that "most important" is meant here (as some things xod says later suggest) in the sense of "most encompassing."  This is doubtful as well, but seems to point in some useful directions. 

In passing, one feature of the Web that is most unlike a book is that it is not a done thing, but a constantly changing (mostly growing) entity. Even at a given point, it is inherently unfinished, even more than a three-volume novel is at the end of volume 2.

If we had a good word for those fungi like the one in northern Michigan that covers square miles and has been growing for millennia, it might make a good base.

 --part1_197.cdc4db3.2aaf9724_boundary--