From cqx@nefud.org Tue Sep 10 12:22:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 19:22:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7436 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 19:22:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 19:22:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 19:22:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17oqay-0006rr-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:22:44 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17oqaI-0006rR-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:22:02 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.144.199.42] (helo=cube.nefud.org ident=[4VKQF+J9cZmTvAvDZAMBpXIpiwCbIKYM]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17oqaB-0006rI-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:55 -0700 Received: from cube2.nefud.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cube.nefud.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFC25ACB0 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:53 -0700 (PDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] word for "www" (was: Archive location.) In-Reply-To: Message from Invent Yourself of "Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:21:13 EDT." <20020910131928.Y68275-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:53 -0700 Message-Id: <20020910192153.DEFC25ACB0@cube.nefud.org> X-archive-position: 1034 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: cqx@nefud.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Allan Bailey Reply-To: cqx@nefud.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810585 X-Yahoo-Profile: zirpu I'd like to point out that a "book" is a physical object. "The Web" is an abstraction. The "web" as it "exists" is nothing more than information sources (webservers, whatever) connected by *an* "internet". The "internet" is nothing more than the inter-connection of local networks to a larger network. So, that said, "www" could be thought of as: [information sources] [linked by network (electronic, carrier pigeon, whatever)] ( i can't think of good lujvo for the above bracketed concepts at the moment, sorry. ) I vote for leaving 'cukta' implying a physical object. 'cukta dinju' => ckudi'u ~= "library" maybe something like: ckudi'u + [network linking concept] le mi $0.14159 fepni mu'o mi'e zirbolc. (aka allan) Invent Yourself wrote: >>>From http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?ralcku > > > 1. maldzena reservations about the virtuality of a cukta can be >overcome by considering the modern meaning of the term "document", and >considering a cukta as a collection of documents. > > 2. The gismu definition does not refer to the cohesiveness often >considered necessary for "books". > > 3. Is a "single website" a cukta? Can a cukta be in hypertext form and >retain its status as a single cukta? Is a Wiki any sort of cukta? Beware >of importing the malglico semantics of "book"! > > 4. Different websites are often linked together, associatively and with >the cohesion of meaning. > > 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". > > 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. > > > >-- >Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike >on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that >act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation? > -- Howard Zinn > > > > > > >To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > -- .allan.