Concerning translations and the many disparate interpretations they can yield: I've always wished we could put all of these into logical form, parse the semantics, and derive the average. I think, at least most of the time, the truth is somewhere in the middle when you have numerous points of view. I would say the same regarding any software porting efforts as well.

Actually implementing such a system would be a major undertaking. My only ideas to go about it, thus far, would be to have people port, or translate, works into

1) First order logic, and then merging these multiple theories into one.

2) a wiki-esque probabilistic logical database or network, which we could then use to derive an interpretation with the highest likelihood of being the correct interpretation.

Since time immemorial, the value of logic has been it determining "truth" given a model of the world. Thus, I believe logic to be an indispensable tool in the field of translation.

The five-part model presented here as follows:

1) Data. This includes text, images, sound files, specifications of story grammars, declarative information about fictional worlds, tables of statistics about word frequencies, and so on. It also includes instructions to the reader (who may also be an interactor), including those that specify processes to be carried out by the reader.

2) Processes. These are processes actually carried out by the work, and are central to many efforts in the field (especially those proceeding from a computer science perspective). As Chris Crawford puts it: “processing data is the very essence of what a computer does." Nevertheless, processes are optional for digital literature (e.g., many email narratives carry out no processes within the work) as well as for ergodic literature and cybertext (in which all the effort and calculation may be on the reader's part).

3) Interaction. This is change to the state of the work, for which the work was designed, that comes from outside the work. For example, when a reader reconfigures a combinatory text (rather than this being performed by the work's processes) this is interaction. Similarly, when the work's processes accept input from outside the work-whether from the audience or other sources. This is a feature of many popular genres of digital literature, but it is again optional for digital literature and cybertext (e.g., Tale-Spin falls into both categories even when not run interactively) and for ergoilic literature as well (given that the page exploration involved in reading Apollinaire's poems qualifies them as ergoilic). However, it's important to note that cybertext requires calculation somewhere in the production of scriptons--either via processes or interaction.

4) Surface. The surface of a work of digital literature is what the audience experiences: the output of the processes operating on the data, in the context of the physical hardware and setting, through which any audience interaction takes place. No work that reaches an audience can do so without a surface, but some works are more tied to particular surfaces than others (e.g., installation works), and some (e.g., email narratives) make audience selections (e.g., one's chosen email reader) a detennining part of their context. 5) Context. Once there is a work and an audience, there is always context so this isn't optional. Context is important for interpreting any work, but digital literature calls us to consider types of context (e.g., intra-audience communication and relationships in an :MMO fiction) that print-based literature has had to confront less often.

How does Brian Kim Stefans' idea of electronic literature differ from other definitions we've encountered?

Mr. Stefans' idea of electronic literature primarily differs from our definitions in it's scope; Stefan clearly sees the term as currently lacking solid meaning due to the differences between the various members that can arguably represent the discipline.

The problem is that the artist/writers who can be said to be “electronic writers” are coming at it from different angles.

What is the argument Jill Walker Rettberg is making in this section? What's at stake?

I believe Jill is trying to illustrate the lack of a banner by which an entire field can stand by. Without a specific name, as well as a clear historical account of the discipline, it's difficult to characterize it. What is at stake then is clarity; specifically, the clarity and standardization of jargon and methods you get with more established fields.

Sounds appropriate as well. Nevertheless, I think the former definition paints a picture more inline with what pops into my head when someone says the term "Electronic Literature."

I like that. That sounds pretty right-on to me, but I certainly am no expert on the subject.