Combining thoughts of secondary theory as put forth by Smith and Mark and the topic of affordances put forth by Kuhn offers a complex evaluation of how different cultures use different objects. Kuhn quotes Gibson: “the affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal,” (617), which I follow with the assumption that environments may offer different “animals” different things, and spur various forms of activity.
In the beginning of his paper Kuhn poses the question, “what can be done to make geographical information more supportive of human activities?” (613). The process of creating ontologies includes grasping the actions from a text, then identifying the objects which afford them. I am curious to how much rigour is ensured during this process, and how much of the object-affordance relationship is left to assumption or distant inference. Kuhn notes that the “details of this procedure are also language-dependent” (622), insisting that some statements may be lost in translation. It is difficult for a person to try and examine the activities afforded to certain cultures by certain objects—since, as we know with knowledge of secondary theory, is not consistent across the globe.
Kuhn, Werner. “Ontologies in Support of Activities in Geographical Space.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 15.7 (2001): 613-631.
-sidewalk ballet
Sidewalk, can you push this further and offer your considered opinion on the value of these statements, for example by Kuhn? Or perhaps connect it to other readings like the ABM readings?