An ontology of landforms is an interesting concept. And this paper approached it in an interesting way, asking, “Do mountains exist?” moving from the various attributes of a mountain into the broader question of how might we characterize our landforms in general. But I found Smith and Mark addressed multiple ideas without neatly pulling together their main argument and limitations to such an argument. I was slightly confused as to precisely how they felt about some of their main points—can Primary Theory provide sufficient understanding to create a shared language for landforms, for example?
Upon reading this paper, I was not convinced. I believe to create one ontology for landforms would be incredibly difficult, even if we are assuming the ontology would be used by a relatively homogeneous group of people (in terms of cultural belief systems/research parameters/etc). I understand the necessity, as they state, of having a shared language for people such as researchers, pilots, soldiers, scientists, to name a few. But how can we presume that all people will have the same needs of a landscape, and thus will benefit from the same ontology? It begs the question “What ARE mountains… and why do we care?” Well, we care because of the question we are asking—they are relevant to something of interest to us. As Kuhn states in Ontologies in support of activities in geographical space, ontologies appear to be somewhat task specific. And the way we define our landscapes is surely specific to how we will be using them?
It seems what they describe as “Primary Theory”, as I understood it, may not relate to understandings that are as general across the board as they necessarily make them out to be. Perhaps a better knowledge of ontologies on the part of the reader (ie. myself) may have clarified aspects of this argument, or perhaps it is the argument itself. But it is particularly ironic, in my mind, that in a paper discussing the benefits of a shared and commonly understood language, their ability to express and defend their position was lacking.
–sah
Smith, B, and D M. Mark. “Do Mountains Exist? Towards an Ontology of Landforms.” Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design. 30 (2003): 411-428. Print.
Kuhn, Werner. “Ontologies in Support of Activities in Geographical Space.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 15.7 (2001): 613-631. Print.
You remind me of John Searle’s book on the Social Construction of Reality. In this work lies the challenge you and others face in grasping ontologies. Ontologies are what is, the essence of the object and not whether “all people will have the same needs of a landscape”. The latter is an affordance, a property of the object. The challenge becomes how we capture the essence of the object without defining it in terms of its functionality.