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
I have this argument all the time with David Mark. However, take a look at Rob Raskin’s SWEET ontology and OGC’s ontology of geographic entities. They make the exact case that there is such a thing as universals.