Computers, Society, and Nature

May Yuan’s article regarding temporal GIS was an excellent introduction to the topic.  Displaying temporal data in a GIS is difficult to do effectively because of the platform’s focus on space and representation.  Two main methods of incorporating temporal data use either time-stamped layers or, time-stamped attributes.  Both have their advantages and disadvantages.  Personally, I have used time-stamped raster layers to assess land use change and it seemed effective though upon reflection I would hardly say it is ideal.

Change over time is a complex concept, more so than change over space.  Does GIS’s emphasis on representing geographic data make incorporating temporal data impossible?  One thing is clear, improved temporal data capabilities for GIS is necessary if GIS is to be used to confront difficult issues.  The GIS Wiki identifies epidemiology, transportation planning, and disaster management as key areas for temporal GIS but it could be used in many other fields.  Climate change, gentrification, urban decay, migration, better analysis of Big Data.  I would be interested in hearing in class how temporal GIS relates to Geovisualization as they seem like they could be related.  Also I’m sure that their are specific metadata issues associated with using temporal data sets.

GoOutside

Crampton’s article on Big Data, its limitations, and possible methods of improving the usability of the geoweb is certainly one of my favourite articles so far.  I found the article to be informative, entertaining, and well written.

In a class discussion earlier this semester we discussed whether or not Twitter and other social media platforms were creating usable, interesting data or, if they were creating ‘noise’.  This article discusses some of these very issues.  How does one find usable data when ‘bots’ are hijacking trending topics to sell iPhones? Is any of the data usable anyway? The fact that Twitter is largely comprised of ‘re-Tweets’ lead the author to conclude their data set was fairly thin.

I think the author made a good point when pointing out that observations cannot be generalized to society-at-large because of the very small usage of Twitter, and the small proportion of Twitter users who actually Tweet.  The lack of explanatory power within some of these very large datasets was also identified as a major restriction of using ‘Big Data’, specifically Twitter.

The suggestions of using the geoweb as ancillary data seemed reasonable given the limitations of many Big Data datasets.  To me the most interesting representation of the LPS data was the Tweets over time graph.  I would be really interested in seeing how other trending topics peak and fall over time.

GoOutside

I have never doubted the potential of GIS as a problem solving tool, as I have explored GIScience as a science this semester the horizons of possibility within the discipline have only widened for me. Though I laud it as technology with much to contribute to society, science and business arenas – the silver lining crowns a dark grey cloud.

Using interpretive research methods to better understand the process of GIS implementation, Sahay and Robey draw from two North American case studies to compare and contrast the success and unfulfilled potential of GIS in the real world. The theoretical foundation laid out by the authors pointed to understanding a phenomenon, in our case GIS implementation, within a specific social context. Collecting data from extensive interviews of GIS users two prevailing inferences were drawn from the cases studied: the first that the organization structure of the receiving body has a grand influence on the effectiveness of GIS technology deployment, and the second that the capability of the institution adopting GIS to transition into the world of GIS is crucial, as one example illustrated, a lack of prior experience with spatial data analysis can prove to be disastrous.

It’s important to note that these two varied examples demonstrate that the needs for effective GIS implementations do not lie in technology or software in and of itself, rather in the people and management responsible for introducing this tool, where necessary. The authors through their research, effectively revealed that the unfulfilled potential of GIS implementation speaks more about the social context and mode of implementation than about the suitability of the tool itself. With the failed implementation, it was evident that the GIS implementation was more helpful in revealing the managerial flaws of the agency than actually providing the perceived intending service by adopting GIS.

Through this reading I have learned that while the introduction of new technologies comes with its consequences, putting human being in charge of things does too.

Othello

I cannot emphasize how important metadata is.

Without geospatial data, we would be without the very core of GIScience left with the burden of a heavy toolbox with no material to build with. Metadata, is popularly described as data about data, providing data users with the information they require in order first find the data they require, but also assess the fitness of use for their research goals. In a world where countless hours are invested in searching for the correct data, metadata is a hero – but not one without flaws.

Guptill introduces the subject of metadata well, unpacking for us the workings of metadata standardization. Yes, there is another layer. As the title of this post suggests, the categorization of the data itself is not sufficient, without standardization of metadata how does one compare data sources or place confidence in the terminology used to describe the data they collect? One of the key issues that this article raised in my mind are the methods required to reconcile different data and metadata standards drawn from different countries. There are over 70 territorial entities where English is an official language, 70 ways in which metadata could exist.

While my passion for metadata shines optimistic that its the answer to all of our data search woes, there exists a tension between the desire of a user for detailed metadata and the availability of resources for the data producer to create it. The cost of metadata production can be reduced, according to Guptill by advancements in metadata standardization.

I do really wonder what standards exist, if any, for volunteered geographic information. I would argue that it’s absence may invalidate, VGI as a legitimate geospatial data source.

– Othello

In ‘A critical evaluation of location based services and their potential’, Raper et al. explore the current state of location based services (LBS) research, proposing a research agenda moving forward. Drawing from a robust list of publications the article ends with a table detailing a non-exhaustive list of topics of significance in the topic, almost a third of the items are categorized as urgent clearly indicating that this young field of research has a ways to go before finding its feet.

In LBS, location information and other data are used to create value-added consumer/user experiences – we live in and move through space making LBS a field full of potential.From the dizzying list of topics covered, my attention was drawn towards two in particular: the use of tracking in LBS and mobile cartography.

In tracking analysis the key objective is to use the inference of past travel behavior to allow for the prediction of real-time destinations, learning previous patterns of movement to inform estimations of future ones. With this powerful technology legal protection for users in terms of privacy is crucial. I was alarmed to encounter through this reading the concept of geoslavery, and work is required to explore this concept of location control. In terms of mobile cartography, the authors highlighted a need for adaptations of cartographic presentations to mobile screen displays. Although information can be provided via audio, geovisualization remains the central vehicle of communication for LBS devices.

When this article was first published, the first generation of the iPhone had just hit the market, I would be intrigued to learn of how this article would read given our current context. The iPhone 6 boasts a screen so large it struggles to fit in most decently sized pockets, a technological development that will propel the dialogue presented by Raper in a new direction – both in terms of mobile cartography and that of larger questions within the field of LBS. I do wonder though: are technological advances sufficient to address the legal issues surrounding LBS?

– Othello

The issues regarding metadata highlighted in Guptil’s article seem overwhelming to me.  With the rate at which new data is being created I find it hard to imagine there will be sufficient resources allocated to ensuring existing data is properly cited and categorized.  Furthermore, with so many different types of datasets it is hard to see how standards will be adopted by all data creators.  I found the idea of the “crosswalks” to be the most compelling possible solution to the growing number of metadata types.

This issue brings to mind the need for ontologies.  The author identifies better semantic interoperability as a possible path to aid in the solution of this problem.  I suppose one of the issues associated with the ontological approach is that it would create the need for data collectors to have common definitions or at least common views of the world around them.  As we have discussed in class, this would have serious ramifications for those who do not view the world with a “Western” lens.

GoOutside

In his article titled ‘Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games‘ Tulloch answers the questions he proposes though the presentation of two case studies that feature volunteered geographic information (VGI). VGI is characterized by the collection, organization and dissemination of geographic information by volunteers working individually or in groups. Tulloch works throughout his piece to outlining the overlap between VGI and public participation GIS (PPGIS), as well as the difference between the two fields of study. The clear distinction comes in the level of recognition in the domain of GIScience, with VGI lacking robust literature making it a far less established field. While this is the case, PPGIS is proposed as a “nexus for […] connecting VGI ideas with existing [GIScience] literature”. While an overlap exists between the established PPGIS and VGI, the goals of each field of study differ, the formers is accepted having clear intentions for the empowerment of the public to a position of influence in the policy decision process, where as VGI can be viewed as a frivolous activity, a hybrid of entertainment and informal volunteerism.

A major question that arises from the reading of this article is whether VGI requires a widely accepted positioning within the larger GIScience body of knowledge at all. The innovative and creative aspects of VGI point to the fact that it is a citizen driven domain, where in which the public has access to the tools to volunteer information regardless of whether there exists a policy decision in which the volunteer can participate. Information will always be volunteered, data that can be filtered, assessed and used by professionals or the public as they deem necessary.

While the ontology of VGI may have developed in the 5 years since this article was published, my thoughts align with those of Tulloch, that VGI doesn’t align neatly with PPGIS. There remains many unresolved questions about VGI that when answered will allow it to take hold of its rightful place, standing on its own two feet.

– Othello

Do Mountains Exist? Towards an Ontology of Landforms by Smith and Mark deal with questions of ontology within geography: ontology being the philosophical study of the nature of being and existence. By asking the seemingly simple question: “Do mountains exist?” this article threw me headfirst down a spiraling rabbit-hole. I was first clouded by the notion that a mountain is not a detached object with explicit boundaries, it is this very ambiguity that mountains share with other landscape features that demonstrates that a mountain only really exists as a ‘result of human belief’. We have attributed meaning to extrusions of land that dot the landscapes of this geoid one which we live. Where a mountain begins and ends is largely unclear.One might argue that an object does not need to be explicitly demarked to earn the right to existence, however the world is far easier to understand or at least information systems function far smoother when we do.

The importance of ontology is that the modeling of environments scientifically demands the explicit definition of objects and further categorization of objects within categories. Without the understanding of objects and how they are categorized, how does one begin to place information within the database structures employed in GIScience research and information systems. It is this framework for analysis that raise ontology as such a salient conversation, one that I did not appropriately appreciate until I read Rundstrom’s article on the intersection of GIScience and the traditional knowledge held by indigenous people in the northern reaches of Canada.

Both articles expand the horizons of GIScience research beyond the technicality of tools, by examining how our ways of thinking and tendencies of human thought speak to the technologies we employ.

– Othello

In Mark and Smith’s article ‘Do Mountains Exist’ the authors explore the idea of ontologies using the example of how we understand, recognize, and define the geographic concept of a Mountain.  Mountains can be described using common-sense theories and language while also described using topography, hydrology, and geomorphology.  The complexity of language is increased when one considers how culture and context affect how we know and understand various geographic contexts.

The implications for functional ontologies within GIScience are important and far reaching.  One of the most important implications is that with functional ontologies of geographic concepts comes the ability for data to be shared more effectively.  Because different organizations often use their own definitions, data collection techniques, and storage methods having ontologies that are able to sort and define various datasets can be extremely useful for the sharing of information.

Although I really enjoy this article, one aspect of ontologies I would have liked to learn more about from these authors is how ontologies are formally constructed.  This article was useful in understanding why ontologies are necessary though it would have been beneficial to provide information regarding what ontologies actually are in a tangible sense.

GoOutside

I’m not sure if this is going off on a tangent but I though while reading this article that it would be really cool to somehow map people’s perceptions of their environments.  For example, it could be really neat to see how people perceive public space or how soldiers react to adverse situations.  Surely there would be a lot of necessary technology to do such a thing but the idea is one I found interesting.  There are so many applications where it would be useful to know how people perceiving and reacting to their environment without actually having to ask them.

To me it also seems that this article relates somewhat to what we’ve discussed in previous classes about big data and the harvesting of information off of social media websites.  Those applications seem to take try to understand how humans perceive certain phenomena based on what they express while EPBG I believe is trying to gain an understanding of how humans understand a phenomena though not necessarily how they outwardly express that understanding.

GoOutside

This was definitely the first time I have been exposed to the idea of Indigenous G.I.S and the author raised some thought-provoking points. I found, however, that it was a little challenging to follow some of the arguments that he was attempting to make, but that was most probably due to my bias coming from a technoscientist background. To wit, the author argued that there were positive aspects of not inscribing or writing down knowledge, an idea that is fairly unfamiliar to me. After reading the article and understanding where the author is coming from I can see his point of view but since “we are steeped in the ways of the society that produced them”, I’m not sure if I’m 100% convinced of his rationale.

Another curious point that was raised was how G.I.S. could potentially be toxic to human diversity. G.I.S. traditionally follows Western standards about geographical space and knowledge and the author argues that this can be subversive towards indigenous cultures. The author also argues that the way in which geographic data is represented (using maps, G.I.S., etc.) is inherently destabilizing towards indigenous culture. This is not a point that is often raised so it was fascinating to read. Whether it is destabilizing or not (I’m not fully convinced), I feel that it is important that this debate takes place since protecting the cultural integrity of minorities should be an important goal for everybody.

-Benny

I found this article to be very interesting.  Now in my final class of a GIS minor, it is difficult to imagine a GIS that does not portray geographical features as objects which are meant to be manipulated by humans.  A paper I recently skimmed through looked at creating an ontology of hydrological features with Cree people in northern Quebec.  It was an interesting read mostly because of how difficult it appeared to be to formalize a worldview into a computer readable ontology.   It seems one of the recurring themes of this class is that GIS does not handle “fuzzy” or non-concrete views of the world very well.

GoOutside