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