Subject: [lojban] Re: [Announcement] jbovlaste 0.7

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:54:48 -0800

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