Computers, Society, and Nature

This article made me really excited.  I love that it emphasizes the evolution of maps.  Now, when I am asked (as a geography student) if I make maps, I can say, “YES!”, knowing that means so much more than simply (or sometimes as we all know, not so simply!) drawing lines on a map, and actually creating a dynamic database that reflects an accumulation of spatial and non-spatial data.  The idea of maps becoming so much more than a method of visualization, but methods of visualization AND data storage, representation, data manipulation, etc is incredibly fascinating.

Despite the fact that it was entitled “Research Challenges in Geovisualization”, I managed to overlook the “challenging” aspect, and really focus on the amazing potential of geovisualization.  It’s true that there are a lot of challenges–but each challenge merely brought about excitement for the prospect of these challenges being overcome and the full potential of geovisualization being realized.

If you Google “Digital Earth” you get many various hits, but one in particular that I thought impressively captured an aspect of the integration possibilities with geovisualization is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/blaise_aguera.html.  This video is a TED Talk discussing Bing Maps and Digital Earths.  Obviously, there are many problems and questions that must be asked of technology such as this (as MacEachren and Kraak so thoroughly pointed out in their article), but the implications are nevertheless fantastic!

On a more technical note, I think the suggestions presented by MacEachren and Kraak were very interesting, and the emphasis on the interdisciplinary requirements of a task such as this was well noted.  The nature of geovisualization seems to require interdisciplinary work, as it is the integration of many areas of expertise, and data in many forms.  All in all, I am excited to see what the future brings for this rapidly emerging field.

–sah

MacEachren, Alan M, and Menno-Jan Kraak. “Research Challenges in Geovisualization.” Cartography and Geographic Information Science. 28.1 (2001): 3-12. Print.

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.

Part of Elwood’s paper considers the implications of using data provided from different users. Data providers stemming from different backgrounds and cultures approach information, its synthesis, and its portrayal in varying ways. This heterogeneous data is further transformed through the manipulations required to make any sense of it. Elwood notes, “data are dynamic, modified through individual and institutional interactions and practices” (259). How can we ensure that the meaning instilled by the original user is carried through all kinds of manipulations and transformations, especially when primarily deciphering the original meaning proves to be laden with complexities?

Elwood provides an overview of many solutions to grapple with a wide array of geovisualisation challenges, but I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves. Surely there are a vast number of challenges to be addressed (as seen also in the MacEachren and Kraak article), but can we do it all at the same time? Making sense of original user data seems to be of primary importance before we can assess how it changes through practice and collaboration. While initially seeming counterintuitive to user friendliness, approaches like “standardiz[ing] terms across multiple sources” (258) and using formal ontologies may prove necessary in trying to etch out semantic differences in user provided data.

How can we work collaboratively if we’re talking about different things? We can trace the “modification of concepts in a spatial database as they are used in the process of collaboration” (260), but what do these concepts mean? Can we actually standardize open, user-generated geospatial data in order for it to be interoperable? With the increasing amounts of data sources and data heterogeneity, it looks like there is a long, winding road ahead of us.

Elwood, S. 2009: Geographic Information Science: new geovisualization technologies — emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research. Progress in Human Geography 33(2), 256-263.

-sidewalk ballet

I agree with sah about this article particularly with respect to the need to have task specific ontologies rather than a specific universal ontology of landforms in many cases. Those who study a mountain or require precise definitions of what a mountain is would require an ontology of landforms although they may be the only ones to use such an ontology. In class, it was mentioned that keeping spatial uncertainties present in the data was often very important in representing different views on intangible concepts such as disputed country boundaries. This same thinking can apply in terms of ontologies as well.

An ontology, to me, seems like a dictionary of the spatial meaning associated with a particular word. In this sense, and perhaps I have misinterpreted what an ontology is exactly, an ontology could have multiple definitions of a particular word and the user could select the correct definition for their purposes from the ontology. I compare this to different types of citations available on citation manager software. There are many different ways of representing crucial citation information and the user need only select the one they require. Why could this not apply an ontology of landforms?

-Outdoor Addict

GIS is known to have its pre-defined categories and way of being in the world. In fact, GIS has its own ontology, or even ontologies (as we can’t even decide if it is a tool or a science, we must have different ways of thinking about GIS). The question that must be asked is when is a parcel of land part of a river network, and how can this be represented in GIS today?

Smith and Mark outline in their paper that ways of thinking about mountains differ from culture to culture and language to language, this is also true when thinking of GIS.  GIS has a certain way of thinking about real-world phenomena that may differ from aboriginal perception of the same phenomena. Sieber once mentioned that in GIS, a river network is constrained to the line segment that represents it, but for aboriginals, the river might also continue as part of the land over which they portage their canoe.

The same can be said for other geographic phenomena, such as mountains, as in Smith and Mark’s article. Mountains are represented in reality as continuous landforms indicated by a steep elevation gradient, though the commons will identify a single mountain as an object, and even offer it a name.  Aboriginal peoples may attribute spiritual value to a mountain, or be the basis of their world view, as quoted in Smith and Mark. However, in GIS a mountain can be represented as a gridded digital elevation model, a point or a polygon.

Ontologies represent reality for a certain group, and also relates to GIS as a field.

-rsmithlal

The first thing I noticed was that Smith & Mark start with a much more philosophical definition of ontology, as being focused on describing “the constituents of reality…in a systematic way”, as opposed to Kuhn’s definition diving straight into specification of conceptualisations through language which bypasses the question of existence. It was interesting to see the two approaches – one from the domain based ontology and the other from the more holistic approach.

Smith and Mark provide a good overview of ontology, especially primary and secondary theory and the separation of the two. However, their actual suggestions on the future of geospatial ontology is quite scarce, apart from stressing the need for an all encompassing ontology that is general enough to be used in any scenario, but also able to be tweaked as well.

Kuhn on the other hand goes through the interesting process of creating an ontology, and puts more detail into concepts such as affordances. The methodology he goes through is interesting, but still very much dependent upon a textual source. The choice of that source is absolutely crucial – choosing a text in a certain language is probably already resulting in a loss in ‘resolution’ (if that term may be appropriate here), but it is after all, a domain specific ontology, in which case – why translate it to English in the first place (I must note at this point that I am definitely not an expert in the field of ontology).

What I would like to question though is whether or not having separate ontologies is necessarily a big problem. The ontologies used everyday I think are very much a cultural phenomenon in such that they are and should be flexible and malleable according to what humans do and the scale at which we are able to perceive things. In trying to create a formal ontology (an ontology that is unbiased and constant, independent of content), one is probably (as madskiier suggests) limiting the ability to express oneself. The nature of the world is dynamic and human knowledge increasing, so perhaps it is the nature of ontologies to grow, rather than be static. I do agree however that issues of translation and cataloguing are very reliant on ontology, but having separate domain based ontologies should still be the way to go, in order to preserve as much detail as possible.

Finally – what would a formal geographic ontology do for the imagination and communication? It may make the world a slightly more boring place

-Peck

*yes. cold desert environment.

The concept most fascinating to me in Kuhn`s paper was that of grounding which explained that the “claims of any domain theory need to be based on some observation in that domain”. This makes intuitive sense; one must know the domain in question and have some reference material to be able to begin to assemble the domain theory and an accompanying ontology. However, Kuhn refers to the “observation” as being “tangible” which may not always be the case. In Kuhn’s methodology, the basis for information is from a textual source compiled by experts. This assumes experts have the most appropriate grasp of how to assemble the concepts of a domain into some textual reference and then ontology. Yet this neglects two things: public participation and non-tangible reference material.

Public participation would be crucial in cultural studies where experts may not actually be of the culture they study and so may miss some cultural distinctions as a result of their own cultural influences. This reflects a need for the public to participate in defining concepts and objects as they see them and not only as these things are seen by experts or, as Kuhn mentioned, by the knowledge engineers often creating the ontologies.

Closely related to public participation are non-tangible references for a subject such as oral histories of some cultures. The history or stories told may remain relatively stable over time yet the words used to tell a particular history or story may change from telling to telling making it difficult to pin down exactly the meaning of a single concept in the story and to place this in an ontology.

-Outdoor Addict

In his article, Kuhn states that ontology design is performed by knowledge engineers that are not specialized in the domains they are designing ontologies for (Kuhn, 619; emphasis added).  Furthermore, he states that ontology design is carried out in consultation with domain experts through informal interviews, as well as incorporation of documents detailing the ontology requirements and existing databases on the subject of the domain(619).

I feel that these knowledge engineers would be able to create a more in depth and meaningful ontology if they were to actually undertake the grueling and likely expensive task of specializing in the domain that they with to create an new ontology for.  Borrowing from the field of Anthropology, you could think of this concept as a type of Ontological Fieldwork.  The premise of fieldwork is to be able to learn the subtle nuances of a culture, or in this case – a domain, through integration and participation in the life and events of a particular culture, or in our example, domain.  I view this current generation of Knowledge engineers as the equivalent of Armchair Anthropologists, those is in the pre-Boasian era of anthropology would study, and subsequently define, a culture based on explorer, missionary or colonial reports.  This of course lead to a the prevalence of ideas about cultures that were sometimes very far from reality.

In order for the effective and meaningful ontology design, I propose the following five steps to be undertaken by Knowledge Engineers before attempting to define a new ontology for a domain, over a period of at least a year.

1. Designers should identify and chose a mentor from one of the established researchers in the designers domain of interest.
2. Designers should study their mentor’s work, and subsequently explore the work of other established and up-and-coming researchers in the domain of interest.
3. Designers should attend or organize conferences or round tables designed to bring to light a collective picture of what the particularities of the domain of interest.
4. Designers should synthesize their findings and prepare a report, or ethnography, of the domain of interest.
5. Designers should commence work on designing an ontology to represent the domain of interest, taking into consideration nuances of the domain and other findings discovered during domain fieldwork.

In conclusion, I feel that ontology design would benefit from an added level of familiarity with the domain of interest. This would aid in illuminating meaningful nuances that may otherwise be overlooked when researching a domain using conventional, non-committal methods.

– rsmithlal

I believe an approach that is based on Gibson’s idea of affordances is already off to a good start because it places human experiences, namely activities/tasks, as priority. Theoretically, it offers us an opportunity to escape from the daunting task of defining the precise boundaries of a river or the exact place a mountain ends as objects of reality and focus on how features allow activities to be performed. However, more importantly, I think it fits in nicely with Heidegger’s idea that nature is fundamentally revealing. According to him, there are two ways of things come into being, either through “phusis”, where a thing rises from itself and retrieves back into itself (flower blossoming) or through “techne”, where a craftsmen brings a thing comes into being (carpenter makes a bench out of wood). In short, a feature in the world reveals a certain part of itself to us depending on the task we seek to accomplish.

I think the paper could have been improved if the authors first give an overview of existing methods of ontology construction,, whether object-oriented or field-oriented, and discuss their advantages/disadvantages. In particular, which aspects are poorly served by constructing a GIS ontology through an object-oriented approach and how does the approach based in affordances address these issues. This comparison would have helped to demonstrate the strengths of their method more clearly. One questions arose while thinking about ontologies that supported activities. If an activity-oriented ontology is based on certain activities, I wonder then, if an ontology can be constructed for a map designed for general purposes like Google Map or Google Earth?
– Ally_Nash

I think that Smith and Kuhn have different viewpoints of ontology. While Smith takes a “problem solving” approach, Kuhn approaches it with a more “critical theory” approach. That is, that Smith accepts the structure of the system and works within in it, while Kuhn attempts at a complete restructure. I personally found the Kuhn article a little more difficult to process, but I did find it interesting that he focuses on language and logic theory. I also noted that while Kuhn suggests that there are “Ontology designers” who appoint what may be included in GIS language and or experience. Contrary to this, Smith infers that our ontologies are subconscious and are created through our personal life experiences. He mentions (as other classmates have cited) that someone who is exposed to plains and fields might have a different impression of a mountain range.

ClimateNYC also mentions this, and I will add that not only would an Inuk have difficulty describing a desert, but it has been noted by many anthropologists that Inuit have an extended vocabulary for certain types of snow and ice. Professor Colin Scott (McGill) suggests they might have four, five or six separate words describing snow; all dependant on the temperature and moisture content etc.  This concept is foreign to even Canadians. I personally can only think of two; wet snow (slush) and normal snow (these days snow is almost non-existent and ice may soon replace the word snow).

Both authors take interesting standpoints. Personally, I like Smith’s perspective. I believe that Ontologies occur without conscious effort. They are formed through many years and experiences, each one contributing to a personal ontology of a thing or concept. I’m not sure that it is entirely correct to categorize and engineer a proper set of rules and defined ontologies.

Andrew “GIS” Funa

*I would prefer to not use the term Eskimo as it has been tied to certain negative connotations (that in itself may been ontological)

*I also will add that ClimateNYC infers that Inuit do not live in the desert, but just to be picky, I will add that they more often than not, do in fact live in a desert per se.

After reading the paper, I am still not very confused as to what the authors were arguing for. The different sub-headings seem independent from each other, which made their train of thought hard to follow. Often, I would find myself asking, “so how does that say about building an ontology of landforms?”

Before building such ontology, we as humans must first come to a clear understanding/philosophy of our relationship with our environment and the Earth. Although I am not sure if these terms can be equated, to me, primary theory sounds a lot like objectivism where things are deemed to exist upon being perceived and secondary theory sounds a lot of subjectivism where what exists depends on cultural believes and discourse. This dualistic way of understanding our relationship to nature is problematic. We cannot interpret our environment/space/geography as something that is external and separate from us when it is the very thing that allows us to experience ourselves. The French philosopher Merleau-Ponty has dedicated his life to constructing the Gestalt ontology. Naess has also extended this ontology in environmental philosophy. For me, the Gestalt ontology is the right direction we should be heading because it tries to marry the subjective-objective/mind-body duality in a way that the two views can remain distinct while remaining the same thing.

A gestalt “refers to a network of relationships whose various elements are mutually defining” (Diehm, 25). Gestalt is thus the smallest meaning chunk that we derive sense from. A good way to think about gestalt is by referring to a sculpture of a man holding a woman by Auguste Rodin. In one instance, the sculpture is called “Fugit Amor” and expresses the emotions of love, longing, and desire. In the second instance, the same sculpture appears on the door of “Dante’s Inferno” and expresses suffering and agony. Depending on the context and the meaning of the elements are changed completely.

I think an ontology of landforms should somehow encompass this way of relational thinking. Also, experience should be given the utmost importance because it is how we “know” the world and through it, how the world experiences itself (this is also way I like the idea of affordances). I would like to argue that the mountain does NOT exist before humans came along in the same way that it exists today after we have experience it because before experience a so called mountain is completely meaningless.

Diehm, C. (2006). Arne Naess and the Task of Gestalt Ontology. Environmental Ethics, 28(21-35). Retrieved on February 1st, 2012 from www.umweltethik.at/download.php?id=439

-Ally_Nash

In my last post, I questioned the need for developing a complete geographic ontology, as it perhaps marginalizes certain ways of knowing. Werner Kuhn—by illustrating how GIS can better support human activities through the use of ontologies, which specify and produce to user needs—has clarified many of my questions and concerns. For example, Kuhn forms a much stronger relationship between the inefficiencies of trying to access and use the many geographic datasets (of varying ontologies) with giving priority to human activities and encouraging efficient use.

One of the elements that I found to be interesting was how the relationship between the ontology designers and the subjects was highlighted. Designers and those who engage in field work are actively choosing what to include in their projects; they are not passive recorders, but instead engage with and impact their fields of work. I would like to note that while these decisions are explicit, choices are also being made at a sub-conscious level.

Khun suggests that a GIS’s purpose should guide how its language is determined. Because humans’ perception of the world is based off of the objects as well as actions, ontologies need to incorporate both. In the portage example, an ontology would not only include how a community perceives a path to be a part of body of water, but also how it uses it, thereby placing significant importance on the requirements of the community. By hierarchically structuring activities and objects (while paying very close attention to semantics), it had become clear to me now the way in which ontologies have the capability to include the varying perceptions of people’s environment while also enabling greater interoperability, which will increase efficiency and usability.

– jeremy

Smith and Mark posit that in order to address the incompatibilities that arise when data gatherers use varying terms and concepts, a complete geographic ontology needs to be developed. But this is a daunting task, as through engaging with the world, every person  develops a specific conceptualization of their environment. This conceptualization varies between members within a community (with regards to both primary and secondary theories), and often varies drastically between members of different communities. I would like to ask if the process of creating a complete ontology—as it seeks to facilitate understanding—in fact marginalizes certain ways of knowing.

As noted by Madskiier_JWong, the portage path example confronts our understanding of primary theory in that it is an ontology that is not ‘common sense’ to most of us. This way of perceiving the world, like Smith and Mark illustrate, is influenced by how the environment is being used. I have difficulty, however, in envisioning how this specific way of perceiving bodies of water could be incorporated into a universal geographic ontology. Could it be its own ontology portage ‘layer’ that can be combined with other perceptions of waterbodies? Or would it be incorporated into a larger set and adjusted to fit a norm?

In addition, Smith and Mark illustrate how the primary theories of certain geographical features may be underdeveloped for various communities. Mountains, for example, may be a fuzzy concept for those living on isolated flatlands. But to be beneficial to those living on isolated flatlands, does a geographic ontology need to include how others perceive mountains? In a human geography sense, it is arguable that the goal of creating a geographic ontology is so that it can be tailored and be of benefit to those it is being designed for. By going back to the portage example, it can be said that the concept of these paths being a part of waterbodies is in fact a geographic social construct (which may not be translatable to other communities) but representing this in contrast to other ways of imagining waterbodies is arguably its strength.

As for who a complete geographic ontology would be useful for, Mark and Smith note several examples in their conclusion: pilots, soldiers, scientists, hikers, firefighters, and naturalists. It is clear that creating a unified geographic language would be of benefit to these individuals, but this seems to be a top-down approach. In creating a geographic ontology, perhaps the focus should be on specifically tailoring it for the needs and values of the community at hand in order to understand and serve it—non-intertranslatables and all.

– jeremy