Geo-visualization seems to present an endless number of opportunities, for both public and private groups and individuals, to partake in data collection, distribution, and analysis. The issue of metadata seems to be prevalent here, and recalled the discussion on ontologies of last week. How do we process this immense amount of incoming data when there is not a shared understanding of what it actually is, and how it is being described? Elwood stressed this need for shared understanding, and I agree that users must be wary when working with this digital spatial data–it is dynamic, heterogeneous, and user-generated. And not that this is a bad thing, but rather, it just means that the initial intention of the creator may not be as evident as data collected by the USGS, for example, as a way to clarify how the data is being qualified. So the desire to create ontologies is understandable. For example, Elwood describes the example of someone who labels an image “close to X location”, and suggests that this “close too” can cause problems. How do we integrate this qualifications of location that make sense to humans, but not to the traditional mathematics GIS operates with currently? In my opinion, this is the largest obstacle to overcome.
What the Elwood article also highlighted for me is that there is a huge onus on the public here, and much of this data should come with a big disclaimer. It seems that this is a technology advancing at a pace much faster than the ability to properly create and cite metadata, and that it is not necessarily being misused, but perhaps more accurately, misinterpreted. Although, Elwood also mentioned that there did seem to be a blatant misuse in some instances, which means that users must be even more aware when using and interpreting this data, because a mistake may not be honest, but rather intended to misdirect the user.
All that being said, the usefulness of geo-visualization technologies is undeniable, and this is an exciting and interesting field. As long as there is constant questioning and continued research into the ability to integrate this data into more traditional, established iterations of “GIS”, as Elwood mentions, it can continue to expand in both scope (of content, and possible uses and users) as well as reliability.
–sah
Elwood, S. 2009: Geographic Information Science: new geovisualization technologies — emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research. Progress in Human Geography 33(2), 256-263.
I agree. The main point here is interoperability, but I think the onus is definitely on the public. With so much user-generated data out there, it’s the public that needs to begin making metadata useful across the board and perhaps adhere to some type of standard.