no jo:(...dekuji za trpelive opakovani... ja chapu(aspon se domnivam) co rikas ty,jenomze kdyby se dal kyberprostor definovat modelem ISO/OSI a jeho projekce jednoznacne oznacit jako blbost tak by mapovani kyberprostoru nebylo(coz aspon dle nekterych autoru je)povazovano za nove odvetvi kartografie, nevytvareli by se typologie mapovani kyberprostoru(typology of cyberspace mapping)...atd. proste by se to neresilo tak jako se to resi .???...uprimne..cim vic o tom ctu tim min se mi dari uchopit o cem tohle (tj. kyberprostor a mapovani kyberprostoru obzvlast)cely vubec je...bohuzel to v tuhle chvili nejak uchopit musim...a proto se tu dokola ptam a nicim si inteligentni image:)
zde dalsi citat treba:
Cyberspace for us now is a kind of mapping into which we project our fears and hopes; it is our “project” As such a projections cyberspace presents the number of representational (and thus cartographic) issues. It is no accident that all maps are projections. The issues are not in mapping its abstractness (cartography has mapped the abstract for centuries)but with its spatial politics. Cyberspace is a classic case of a space which is produced, and which in turn produces(spatialized)subjectivity. Thus not only can cyberspace be mapped, but tracing out its contours we are tracing out the lines on our own faces.Cyberspace is an area of geographic knowledge that sits equally between society and technology.( Crampton,2003:6)