“O”ntology, “o”ntology, ontologies, ontoloGIeS

As the interpretation of ontology varies within different disciples, this reminds me of how the interpretation of spatial phenomenon varies depending on context and what the researching is looking to uncover. A reoccurring theme in this course has been to recognize that the way in which we think, discover, and analyze phenomenon is context specific. How we decide to apply SDSS, visualize space, or determine whether something falls in the category of tool, toolmaking or science depends on the researchers intention and what they wish to convey/uncover. And as expected, the type of ontological approaches and methods is also context specific. As the overarching goal of ontological research is to create “a shared understanding of a domain that is agreed between a number of agents” (Agarwal, 2004) then is it possible to have several ontologies within the boundary the researcher demarcates since shared understandings exist on several levels between humans (ethnically, culturally, gender, age)? As individual positionality is unique to every person, whose shared understanding is being agreed upon?

From what I understand reading this article, GIScience is still in the stages of defining a common set of notions or concepts such that geo-ontologies can only be high level abstractions. Agarwal suggest that the issue is the interdisciplinary nature of GIScience such that the same terminology is conceptualized differently brings excess disciplinary “baggage” to the table. I don’t necessarily see this as a negative – if a shared common understanding can be made within several disciplines (or at least a shared understanding of what it is not) then doesn’t it allow for a more robust definition that can be accepted by more people? And if such a consensus can be achieved, then GIScience can move to the next step in creating this common vocabulary to allow interoperability.

-tranv

Comments are closed.