ralcku: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


''su'oremei jinga me la kandors�is.''
'''ralcku:''' a lujvo for the web?


This is an election method that could work for next year's LLG election, satisfying the properties that the members want the election to have: it elects only candidates that are approved by the majority, unless it has to choose more to fill the minimum number of slots; it allows voters to express that they prefer some candidates over others without voting against the others; it allows tie votes anywhere on the ballot. It is described first in Lojban, then in English.
==== Is the web a "cukta"? ====


-------
# 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.


i di'e tadji le nu so'imei prenu cu cuxna so'i jinga be lo nunturni
** I don't think this addresses either the virtuality of cukta or whether the web is a cukta.  Virtuality of cukta is clearly allowed in the ma'oste and never has been in debate (the word was specifically intended to be usable for ebooks). --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]


i roda poi cuxna cu benji pa cuxna liste cei cuxste poi porsi fi le te cuxna zi'e poi skicu leidu'u da zmanei makau makau i le te cuxna cu se cmima ro le jivna e pa xanri jivna no'u la nonjinga zi'e poi sinxa lesi'o cuxna node i da'o curmi lenu da e de dunli xymoi lo porsi kei poi skicu ledu'u dunynei da de itu'e da'o go da poi cuxna cu djica lenu de poi jivna na jinga gi ei le cuxste po da skicu ledu'u da zmanei la nonjinga de i go da na jinvi tu'a de gi ei le cuxste po da skicu ledu'u da dunynei la nonjinga de tu'u
# The gismu definition does not refer to the cohesiveness often considered necessary for "books".


i tu'e da'o da poi cuxste de poi jivna zo'u go de na'e cmima le porsi po da gi le cuxna cu dunynei la nonjinga de i go la nonjinga na'e cmima le porsi po da gi le cuxna cu zmanei rodi poi jivna la nonjinga
** The gismu definition is "book". --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]


ni'o da'o le la kandors�is tadji pe sepi'o le la tidymn remei porsi tadji poi djine rivbi cu pruce le cuxste lo jinga porsi di'e
# 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"!


ni'o da poi jivna ja me la nonjinga cei brodo de poi brodo zo'u ca'e le ni da jinga fi de cu du li ni'e ni ce'u zmanei da de vu'u ni'e ni ce'u zmanei de da
** The semantics of book define what cukta is.  We have little else to go on.  Some websites may be books (such as the online copy of the refgram); most are not (especially all these modern flash-based ones, etc), and thus are not cukta.  However, this has nothing to do with whether the web as a whole is a book, and thus is beside the point. --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]


i da'o ko porsi le'i ni jinga kei ledu'u da lidne jo zmadu de i porsi pilno lu'a le'i ni jinga kei lenu zbasu le jinga porsi i mu'a go le ni ko'e jinga fi ko'i cu zmarai gi ko'e lidne ko'i le jinga porsi i da'o go da poi ni jinga cu se natfe le ca porsi gi ko toljundi da i mu'a tu'e ko'a jinga fi ko'i ice'obo ko'i jinga fi ko'a ice'obo ko'a jinga fi ko'e tu'u ijo toljundi ledu'u ko'a jinga fi ko'e kei ki'u lenu ko'e pu lidne ko'a
# Different websites are often linked together, associatively and with the cohesion of meaning.


i le te pruce cu jinga porsi fi le'i brodo i go le jinga porsi cu se nenri lo dunli tu'omoi poi vajni gi ei lo pu se cuxna prenu cu jdice le lidne
** They also often are not.  --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]


i go su'oxa jivna cu lidne la nonjinga gi ro le su'examoi jivna cu jinga
# 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".


i go su'ere jivna cu lidne la nonjinga gi ro le su'ecimoi nalxanri jivna cu jinga
** I disagree.  If I go to my browser's location box (or equivalent thereof) and manually input a url to some location, it is analogous to closing and opening a new cukta.  Furthermore, clicking on links which go to a different "website" aren't like turning pages at all; the only linkage which is similar to turning pages is the kind of linkage found in...online books!  (Such as the Next buttons and chapter listing in the online refgram).  It makes sense to assume that the definition of cukta was intended to include these, but not anything else.  (And I believe [[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]] indicated that such was the intent of the word on the [[jbocre: mailing list|mailing list]] by saying "ralcku" would be a [[jbocre: figurative lujvo|figurative lujvo]]) --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]


i go lo jivna su'ocimei je su'omumei cu lidne la nonjinga gi ro ra jinga
# 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.


-------
** It may not always be clear, but that doesn't help your argument.  You need it to *never* be clear, and the truth is that it usually is.  -mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
** You discuss cukta as though its use is the sole complaint. Where is the justification for ralju? (Not that I'll agree with it, you just ought to be comprehensive)


Each voter casts a ballot giving their preferences among the candidates, plus a hypothetical candidate "Nobody". Voters are allowed to give equal ranks to candidates if they have no preference between them. If a voter considers a candidate unacceptable, he should rank him below Nobody; if a voter wishes to abstain with regard to a candidate, he should rank him equal with Nobody.
Irrelevant, low-level discussion of hypertext protocols and TCP does not belong on this page.


An unspecified rank is assumed to be tied with Nobody. If Nobody's rank is unspecified, it is below all ranked candidates.
* This is not an argument, it is simply an unfair dismissal of an opposing viewpoint.  HTTP (== the web) is just a datni xelbe'i which we may desire to refer to by name (whether through a proper cmene, which I favor, or a fu'ivla or a lujvo), due to its popularity. If HTTP isn't important to the web, then gopher, nntp, ftp, irc, and any other protocol for information transfer used on the internet (or even elsewhere!) must also define "webs" (and under your claims, books ([[jbocre: cukta|(cukta]]. --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
** ''It's not an "unfair dismissal" but an attempt to frame the limits of debate to exclude irrelevant tangents which seem relevant to those not paying attention, but in fact completely miss the essentials of the discussion. --xod''


The votes are counted by Condorcet's method, using Tideman's Ranked Pairs method to avoid cycles. This process goes as follows.
*** Merely restating that you think it is irrelevant doesn't make it any less relevant.  Because HTTP defines "the web", it is certainly the heart of the issue:  Can a data transfer protocol (more specifically, can *this* data transfer protocol) be considered a cukta (book) in a non-figurative sense?  -- mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]


Each pair of candidates is considered individually. For two candidates, A and B, the margin of victory of A over B is defined to be the number of voters who rank A above B minus the number of voters who rank B above A.
''This page grew out of a rather productive discussion between [[User:Mark Shoulson e|Mark Shoulson e]] and [[User:xod|xod]] on [[jbocre: IRC|IRC]] today.  To me, I still can't see considering the web as a whole to be '''cukta'''.  I ''can'' consider individual websites to be so, even dynamically generated ones (amazon.com is one big catalog, this wiki is an ever-changing manuscript, etc).  But to me, a book does require a certain amount of cohesiveness. An encyclopedia may be a bunch of mostly unrelated articles, but they were bound together by someone for a particular reason, for the purpose of being one work.  Even if you consider the hyperlinking that goes on to bind things together that way (and I don't, see further), transitivity doesn't apply, at least not that far. Xod has a point that it is not always clear where one website ends and one begins, but on the other hand it ''usually'' is.  There is generally a fair concept of when you're leaving one website to go to another.  A single site isn't necessarily confined to a single domain (and vice-versa), but there is still a certain cohesiveness that's there, even given hyperlinks to the outside.  It seems to be related to being controlled by a single entity, but even that isn't entirely it.  I would say the web is more of a library than a book.  Xod disagrees, claiming that the hyperlinking makes it one large work, all annotating each other; clicking a hyperlink is as easy as turning a page in a book... and in the web, could take you anywhere.  I think that hyperlinking does not make it a single work, even the web were completely topologically connected (which it isn't).  Whew.  I'm not even saying half of what we covered; xod probably has a log. --mi'e mark''


The election result will be an ordering of all the candidates. The margins of victory are sorted from largest to smallest, and they are considered in that order to determine the ordering. For example, if B beats C with the largest margin of victory, then B will be ranked above C in the result. If a victory contradicts a part of the order that has already been established, it is ignored. For example, if B beats C, then C beats A by a smaller margin, then A beats B by a smaller margin, the result that A beats B is ignored because B is already ranked above A.
You know, unrelated to its fitness or unfitness as a word for the WWW, ''ralcku'' would make a really excellent lujvo for the ''metaphorical'' sense of the word "bible" in English, as in "''The Art of Computer Programming'' is the bible of Computer Science" or "Yeah, that's really the best book there is on baking; it's my bible in the kitchen." ''--mi'e [[User:Mark Shoulson|.mark.]]''


The result is now an ordering of all the candidates, including "Nobody". If there is a tie in a crucial place, it should be determined by a tie-breaking vote cast by a designated person.
* I would prefer ''vajraicku'' (with the expected [[jbocre: seljvajvo|seljvajvo]] place structure) if only because ''ralcku'' has already been permanently maimed by this whole www-is-a-book thing. --mi'e [[jbocre: Jordan DeLong djorden.|Jordan DeLong djorden.]]
 
If there are at least 6 candidates who rank above Nobody, then the top 6 are elected.
 
If there are between 3 and 6 candidates who rank above Nobody, then all of them are elected.
 
If there are fewer than 3 candidates who rank above Nobody, then the top 3 actual candidates are elected.

Revision as of 17:09, 4 November 2013

ralcku: a lujvo for the web?

Is the web a "cukta"?

  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.
    • I don't think this addresses either the virtuality of cukta or whether the web is a cukta. Virtuality of cukta is clearly allowed in the ma'oste and never has been in debate (the word was specifically intended to be usable for ebooks). --mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.
  1. The gismu definition does not refer to the cohesiveness often considered necessary for "books".
  1. 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"!
    • The semantics of book define what cukta is. We have little else to go on. Some websites may be books (such as the online copy of the refgram); most are not (especially all these modern flash-based ones, etc), and thus are not cukta. However, this has nothing to do with whether the web as a whole is a book, and thus is beside the point. --mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.
  1. Different websites are often linked together, associatively and with the cohesion of meaning.
  1. 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".
    • I disagree. If I go to my browser's location box (or equivalent thereof) and manually input a url to some location, it is analogous to closing and opening a new cukta. Furthermore, clicking on links which go to a different "website" aren't like turning pages at all; the only linkage which is similar to turning pages is the kind of linkage found in...online books! (Such as the Next buttons and chapter listing in the online refgram). It makes sense to assume that the definition of cukta was intended to include these, but not anything else. (And I believe Bob LeChevalier indicated that such was the intent of the word on the mailing list by saying "ralcku" would be a figurative lujvo) --mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.
  1. 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.
    • It may not always be clear, but that doesn't help your argument. You need it to *never* be clear, and the truth is that it usually is. -mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.
    • You discuss cukta as though its use is the sole complaint. Where is the justification for ralju? (Not that I'll agree with it, you just ought to be comprehensive)

Irrelevant, low-level discussion of hypertext protocols and TCP does not belong on this page.

  • This is not an argument, it is simply an unfair dismissal of an opposing viewpoint. HTTP (== the web) is just a datni xelbe'i which we may desire to refer to by name (whether through a proper cmene, which I favor, or a fu'ivla or a lujvo), due to its popularity. If HTTP isn't important to the web, then gopher, nntp, ftp, irc, and any other protocol for information transfer used on the internet (or even elsewhere!) must also define "webs" (and under your claims, books ((cukta. --mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.
    • It's not an "unfair dismissal" but an attempt to frame the limits of debate to exclude irrelevant tangents which seem relevant to those not paying attention, but in fact completely miss the essentials of the discussion. --xod
      • Merely restating that you think it is irrelevant doesn't make it any less relevant. Because HTTP defines "the web", it is certainly the heart of the issue: Can a data transfer protocol (more specifically, can *this* data transfer protocol) be considered a cukta (book) in a non-figurative sense? -- mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.

This page grew out of a rather productive discussion between Mark Shoulson e and xod on IRC today. To me, I still can't see considering the web as a whole to be cukta. I can consider individual websites to be so, even dynamically generated ones (amazon.com is one big catalog, this wiki is an ever-changing manuscript, etc). But to me, a book does require a certain amount of cohesiveness. An encyclopedia may be a bunch of mostly unrelated articles, but they were bound together by someone for a particular reason, for the purpose of being one work. Even if you consider the hyperlinking that goes on to bind things together that way (and I don't, see further), transitivity doesn't apply, at least not that far. Xod has a point that it is not always clear where one website ends and one begins, but on the other hand it usually is. There is generally a fair concept of when you're leaving one website to go to another. A single site isn't necessarily confined to a single domain (and vice-versa), but there is still a certain cohesiveness that's there, even given hyperlinks to the outside. It seems to be related to being controlled by a single entity, but even that isn't entirely it. I would say the web is more of a library than a book. Xod disagrees, claiming that the hyperlinking makes it one large work, all annotating each other; clicking a hyperlink is as easy as turning a page in a book... and in the web, could take you anywhere. I think that hyperlinking does not make it a single work, even the web were completely topologically connected (which it isn't). Whew. I'm not even saying half of what we covered; xod probably has a log. --mi'e mark

You know, unrelated to its fitness or unfitness as a word for the WWW, ralcku would make a really excellent lujvo for the metaphorical sense of the word "bible" in English, as in "The Art of Computer Programming is the bible of Computer Science" or "Yeah, that's really the best book there is on baking; it's my bible in the kitchen." --mi'e .mark.

  • I would prefer vajraicku (with the expected seljvajvo place structure) if only because ralcku has already been permanently maimed by this whole www-is-a-book thing. --mi'e Jordan DeLong djorden.
Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=ralcku&oldid=75870"