Subject: Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.)

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:09:52 -0700

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:56:42AM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> la robin pu cusku di'e
> 
> > ralcku could be a library.
> 
> Robin, now it occurs to me that you were attempting a reductio ad
> absurdum. 

I was? Cool!

> However, it failed to make its point because I had incorrectly assumed
> that you had read and understood my original post. 

Heh. OK, so I may have skimmed a little.

> On principle I will not repeat what I have already posted (and also
> out of practicality, because what was ignored once can be ignored
> twice), but will offer this much: my original post did note a feature
> of distinction between libraries and the web, and in ignoring it your
> reductio falls apart.

I assume you mean:

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".

And yeah, I can see your point. The problem is that I don't just follow
links; I often open a whole new website. The above argument doesn't
make ralcku compellingly *not* a library to me, either.

> Everyone, I've been using the word "cukta" to mean roughly: a collection
> of documents and/or pages. I don't believe that I have yet heard an
> argument that contradicts this by adding more restrictions to the
> definition which are derived from the place structures, and not simply
> induced from the stereotypical "book". 

The place structure implies that it contains a single 'work' that is in
some way cohesive, as well as fixed authorship.

But as I said, I don't have any really severe problems the web being a
cukta. But I'm going to keep discussing it for interest's sake.

> This includes Mark's reservations, the most cogent thus far. If a book
> is roughly a collection of pages, then the web roughly appears as a
> single book, 

Except that people often go to completely unconnected and unrelated
websites via URL. Some of those sites are not linked from anywhere
else, thus failing to be part of the 'cohesive' whole.

> The blurriness of the distinction between individual but linked
> collections of these pages is a clue that we are dealing with a mass,
> and that we could be aiming for something like lei {hypertext pages}.

That would be my preference, yes.

> However, this unnecessarily restricts us to hypertext pages, 

As opposed to plain text pages?

> or forces us into a lengthy and impotent discussion concerning which
> objects do or can constitute web resources. Good luck finding a lujvo
> for "web resource" that passes your test of being decomposable and
> understandable without context.

Heh. pagbu la .ueb. zo'o

I would be fine with something like samja'odatni, actually. I don't
feel any great need for something that only applies to the WWW as such.
Something that could easily apply to any linked network store would be
fine to me.

> Also, it neglects the unique, singleton nature of the WWW. (There is
> only one WWW, 

How do you define something as being part of the WWW? If a page can be
reached by URL but is not linked anywhere, does that count?

> but there can be any number of masses of web resources in existence.)

Hmmm. Gonna have to ponder that.

> "la ralcku" can be used, sidestepping this whole discussion. 

True.

> And "le" leaves such room for latitude that in practice and with the
> publicity generated by this discussion, "le ralcku" can surely be used
> with understanding now.

You know, I had forgotten about le. That's a good point.

But if you're interested in being understood, you know not to use le in
confusing ways. By the same token, I don't think that ralcku is a lujvo
that will minimize confusion in its listeners. The amount of argument
it has generated alone should be proof of that, when you and I have
proven time and time again of being *perfectly* capable of communicating
in lojban.

> On a parallel note, it's interesting that the people who were around
> when the notion of lujvo was being developed have a quite different
> understanding of the intent behind lujvo than those who came much
> later in the game. Poor communication?

Has anyone besides PC who was around then spoken up on this point?

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/