What about a site like http://www.audi.com ? (01)
IT automatically redirects to another site based on geographical location.
I am in Canada but get the US audi site. In Germany, one would encounter
the german site. (02)
It is a better example? (03)
On 1/20/08 4:33 PM, "John Black" <JohnBlack@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
> Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship betwThe
> following is an attempt to summarize (and reformat in plain text)
> a long discussion about the context-independence of URIs so that
> I can respond to Pat's last response.
> Originally I lamented that it was unfortunate that the W3C's
> architecture documents did not distinguish between the
> establishment of a URI and each instance of its use. My complaint
> was that this prevented using the context of the use of an
> instance of the URI when interpreting it.
> PH> The key point is, what would count as a 'context' for a
>> context-dependent URI?
> PH> Consider this scenario. You, sitting at your computer, use
>> a URi to browse an interesting website, and you send me an
>> email telling me about it and citing the URI. I then, sitting
>> at my
>> computer, two days later on the other side of the planet, type
>> that URI into my browser. We expect that we will see the same
>> website: but what do our two contexts have in common? It might
>> be almost nothing: the times, places, browsers, countries,
>> OSs, maybe even cultural and linguistic settings, can be
>> different. It is inherent to the Web that the contexts of
>> and of use of a URI can be arbitrarily different and far apart
>> every dimension, yet the URI is supposed to retain its meaning.
> JB>> In the following example, the differing 'contexts' are the
> web-pages upon which occurrences of a URI appear.
> JB>> Your scenario is not applicable here. We need the following
>>> scenario. You, sitting at your computer, use URI-A to browse
>>> to an interesting web-page upon which you see a small graphic,
>>> retrieved by an occurrence of URI-CD, which refers to an
>>> assertion that the web-page you are viewing is written in
>>> valid XHTML 1.0.
> JB>> This is URI-CD: http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10
> JB>> What this URI is intended to denote is this assertion (from
>>> W3C help page: http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html) "To
>>> readers that one has taken some care to create an
>>> Web page, a "W3C valid" badge may be displayed (here, the
>>> "valid XHTML 1.0" badge) on any page that validates."
> PH> The URI denotes that badge/image/web-resource/thingie.
>> There is only one of it, and it, itself, is never used to make
>> assertions. The HTTP protocols supply us with a copy
>> (webarch:representation) of it, and we can then use that copy
>> to human:assert something about the page the copied image
>> is on. OK, lets agree on all that.
> PH> But notice that the [speech] 'acts' here ...<snip>... are
>> intrinsically dynamic things, events that occur in time and
>> within a social context (a 'web conversation', perhaps), not
>> textual or even indexical entities. It is the act of displaying
>> the "place order" button which constitutes the making of the
>> offer, not the button itself.
> PH> The name of the badge denotes the badge. USING a TOKEN of
>> that badge in a certain way MAKES an assertion. But the name of
>> the badge doesn't denote the assertion made with a copy of the
>> badge. It also doesn't denote the web page on which the copy
>> occurs, or the time of day when it was published, or a host of
>> other things closely associated with it.
> PH> You miss my point. I am conceding that one can use the image
>> to make an assertion. My point is that the image is not
>> with the assertional act that uses it, nor with the content
>> that is
>> expressed by such an act.
> What then is the assertional act that makes this image into an
> assertion? Just this, I propose, a person takes the assertional
> act of embedding a token of that URI,
> "http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10", into her HTML page and
> publishing the page to the web. And because the resulting
> assertion is indexical, the assertion thus made is different for
> each web-page that a TOKEN of that URI is embedded into. Are we
> still agreed?
> Now consider the word, "I", the first-person English pronoun.
> There is just one English word "I". Copies of it, tokens as you
> say, when embedded in speech or text, can be used by a speaker to
> denote that speaker who so embeds it. To denote (or name) that
> word we use a token of it, in quotes. And we say of the word
> named "I" that it denotes the speaker that embeds it in a
> sentence, that it is indexical, etc. Can't we similarly say of
> the URI named "http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10", that it
> denotes the assertion which is made when a web-page author takes
> the assertional act of embedding a token of it in his web-page,
> that it is indexical, etc.? You keep insisting that the URI
> denotes the image, but to me that would be like saying the word,
> "I", denotes some 16-point, black-ink image of the letter "I" on
> a paper page. To me both the black-ink "I" image and the w3c
> badge image are just vehicles for delivering content.
> By the way, I would like to point out that some of the questions
> in this discussion may apply also to the ISO Common Logic (CL)
> specification. In the CL Requirements section 5.1.3, "Common
> Logic should be easy and natural for use on the Web" there is
> this statement, "b. URIs and URI references should be usable as
> names in the language". And in the "...syntax and semantics"
> section 6.3.1 "Importations and named phrases", where it states,
> "All texts which are published and identified on a network
> *shall* be mutually interpretable with all other texts on the
> network which can import them, over the same universe of
> reference and domain of discourse, and with their vocabularies
> John Black
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Speaking only for myself"
Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)