Kuhn’s article Ontologies in support of activities in geographical space was quite thought provoking for me. As an overview of ontologies, where they are and where the author believes they could be, it was informative. At the end of Kuhn’s piece, I found myself wondering two things. First, I pondered the usefulness of ontologies–genuinely wondering how they are applied. Iit would have been an interesting addition to their case study of an ontology of German traffic codes if they had also included the usefulness and applicability of where and how this could be used. Particularly as this article emphasized the necessity of ontologies related to the task at hand, a knowledge of what the “task at hand” could be for such an ontology would have been a thorough and convincing conclusion.
More than that, though, it caused me to reflect on GIS as a whole, and the frustration that comes along with a software (tool/science/system?) that has the ability to include immense amounts of data and answer many questions. As mentioned, Kuhn posits that “the tasks (or activities) to be supported by a GIS should determine the entities that are admitted to its languages”. When using GIS as a tool, this is a mentality that should not be forgotten. The task at hand is incredibly important. GIS can accomplish many things, analyze interesting data, find solutions and, sometimes, create more problems. As a user with a plethora of tools before you, it can be intimidating, or you may attempt to do too much. With the geospatial and human world being incredibly vast and comprehensive, it seems like it should go without saying that decisions made, and tools–or in this case, languages–chosen should be inherent upon the context within which one is working.
–sah
Kuhn, Werner. “Ontologies in Support of Activities in Geographical Space.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 15.7 (2001): 613-631. Print.