Advertisement

People manipulate objects (but cultivate fields): Beyond the raster-vector debate in GIS

  • Helen Couclelis
Technical Papers Section I
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 639)

Abstract

The ongoing debate in GIS regarding the relative merits of vector versus raster representations of spatial information is usually couched in technical terms. Yet the technical question of the most appropriate data structure begs the philosophical question of the most appropriate conceptualization of geographic space. The paper confronts this latter question in the context of the opposition between the “object” and “field” views of space. I suggest that GIS can turn a rather dry debate into a source of insights regarding the nature of its subject matter by learning from how people actually experience and deal with the geographic world. Human cognition indeed appears to make use of both the object and field views, but at different geographic scales, and for different purposes. These observations suggest a list of desiderata for the next round of thinking about spatial representation in GIS.

Keywords

Geographic Scale Spatial Cognition Geographic Space Field View Geographic Entity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Couclelis, H. (1982). Philosophy in the Construction of Geographic Reality. In P. Gould and G. Olsson (eds.): A Search for Common Ground. London: Pion, pp. 105–140.Google Scholar
  2. Couclelis, H. (1991). Requirements for Planning-Relevant GIS: a Spatial Perspective. Papers in Regional Science 70, 1, 9–19.Google Scholar
  3. Couclelis, H. (forthcoming). A Linguistic Theory of Spatial Cognition. Annals of the Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
  4. Einstein, A. (1960). Relativity: the Special and the General Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  5. Frank A., Mark D. M. (1991). Language Issues for GIS. In D. J. Maguire, M. F. Goodchild, D. W. Rhind (eds.): Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, Vol 1. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Frank A., M. Egenhofer, W. Kuhn (forthcoming). Computational Topology: Data Structures and Algorithms. Cartography and GIS.Google Scholar
  7. Gahegan, M. N., Roberts, S. A. (1988). An Intelligent Object-Oriented Geographical Information System. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 2, 101–110.Google Scholar
  8. Getis, A. (unpublished). Some Thoughts on Developing Proximal Data Bases.Google Scholar
  9. Garling, T., Golledge, R. (1988). Environmental Perception and Cognition. In E. Zube, G. Moore (eds): Advances in Environmental Behaviour and Design, Vol 2, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 203–238.Google Scholar
  10. Goodchild, M. F. (1989). Modeling Error in Vectors and Fields. In M. F. Goodchild, S. Gopal (eds.) Accuracy of Spatial Databases., New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 107–13.Google Scholar
  11. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Hooker, C. A. (1973). Metaphysics and Modern Physics: a Prolegomenon to the Understanding of Quantum Theory. In C.A. Hooker (ed.): Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory. Dordrecht: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Peuquet, D. J. (1984). A Conceptual Framework and Comparison of Spatial Data Models. Cartographica 21 (14), 66–113.Google Scholar
  16. Sack, R. (1986). Human Territoriality: its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Soja, E. (1971). The Political Organization of Space. Resource Paper #8. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
  18. Talmy, L. (1983). How Language Structures Space. In H. Pick, L. Acredolo (eds.): Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Zeigler, B. (1976). Theory of Modelling and Simulation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Zubin, D. (1989). Oral presentation, NCGIA Initiative 2 Specialist Meeting, Santa Barbara. Reported in D. Mark (ed.): Languages of Spatial Relations: Researchable Questions & NCGIA Research Agenda, NCGIA Report 89-2A, NCGIA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Couclelis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations