From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Mar 03 08:55:42 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 16:55:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 36234 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 16:55:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 16:55:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 16:55:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18ptE4-0000uP-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:55:40 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ptDn-0000tv-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:55:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18ptDE-0000tc-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:54:48 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:54:48 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [Announcement] jbovlaste 0.7 Message-ID: <20030303165445.GR7560@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030303051126.GO7560@digitalkingdom.org> <20030303060800.GP7560@digitalkingdom.org> <3E634561.3050004@vr00m.net> <200303031624.h23GOtfO012144@express.cec.wustl.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303031624.h23GOtfO012144@express.cec.wustl.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 4298 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out That would be trivial, actually. Patrick, would that be sufficient? -Robin On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:24:54AM -0600, Adam Lopresto wrote: > It looks like it already accepts definitions in a whole mabla-load of > languages, so I wonder whether there could be created a > pseudo-language for the RDF definitions. > > > Without making a whole load of work, how complicated would it be to add > > another, parallel definition set? > > > > To clarify: I think lojban would be very useful as a language for querying > > the (admittedly poorly documented) emerging standards of RDF-based ontologies > > and whatever semantic web is built around them. I would like to be able to > > have an ontology->lojban correspondance table side-by-side with the regular > > lojban -> natlang translations/parsings/glossings/wawa. > > > > If this would be an absurd amount of work, don't bother. There's no reason > > that this kind of thing needs to be done in jbovlaste, but it seems to me > > that having the correspondances somewhat open to group effort and discussion > > would benefit the language. -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi