Advertisement

Toward a theoretical framework for geographic entity types

  • David M. Mark
Cultural Differences in Spatial Cognition
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 716)

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical framework for defining and representing kinds of geographic entities. The “Spatial Data Transfer Standard” (SDTS) of the United States is used. as. a starting point for discussion. SDTS defines entities in the world, objects as mathematical or computational constructs, and features as both entities and the objects that represent them. The paper reviews the central role played by categories in human cognition, and the relationships between categories and words of natural language. Although categories may appear to exist in an objective world, they are more- properly (and conservatively) thought of as existing in human minds and cultures. This means that category definitions and boundaries can be expected to vary in cross-cultural, cross-linguistic, and cross-disciplinary comparisons, and even at an individual level. This in turn implies that development of ‘universal’ entity type schemes will be very difficult. Some of the difficulties are illustrated for the superficiallysimple example of standing water bodies in English, French, and Spanish. Category boundaries appear to differ not only across languages but also geographically within languages. Human subjects testing will likely be required to explore the nature of geographical entity types as cognitive categories.

Keywords

categories cognition GIS data models natural language cross-linguistic cross-cultural 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abler, Ronald F., 1987. The National Science Foundation National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 303–326.Google Scholar
  2. Berlin, B., and P. Kay, 1969, Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Canada, 1987. Glossary of generic terms in Canada's geographic names (Génériques en usage dans les noms géographiques du Canada). Terminology Bulletin 176, Ottawa: Secrétariat d'Etat du Canada (Department of the Secretary of State of Canada).Google Scholar
  4. Cassirer, E., 1923. Substance and Function. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  5. Couclelis, Helen, 1988. The truth seekers: Geographers in search of the human world. In Golledge, R., Couclelis, H., and Gould, P, editors, A Ground for Common Search. Santa Barbara, CA: The Santa Barbara Geographical Press, pp. 148–155.Google Scholar
  6. Daigle, J. O., 1984. A Dictionary of the Cajun Language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. DGIWG, 1992. The Digital Geographic Information Standard (DIGEST): Part 4, Feature and Attribute Coding Catalog (FACC). Washington, DC: U.S. Defense Mapping Agency.Google Scholar
  8. Fegeas, R. G., Cascio, J. L., and Lazar, R. A., 1992. An Overview of FIPS 173, the Spatial Data Transfer Standard. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 19 (5), 278–293.Google Scholar
  9. Frank, A. and D. M. Mark, 1991. Language Issues for GIS, in: D. Maguire, M. Goodchild, and D. Rhind, editors, Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, Longman, London, vol. 1, pp. 147–163.Google Scholar
  10. Lakoff, George, 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mark, D. M., 1989. Cognitive image-schemata for geographic information: Relations to user views and GIS interfaces. Proceedings, GIS/LIS'89, Orlando, Florida, in press.Google Scholar
  13. Mark, D. M., and Frank, A. U., 1989. Concepts of space and spatial language. Proceedings, Ninth International Symposium on Computer-Assisted Cartography, Baltimore, Maryland, 538–556.Google Scholar
  14. McNeill, Daniel, and Freiberger, Paul, 1993, Fuzzy Logic. New York: Simon & ShusterGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrison, Joel L., 1992. Introduction. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 19 (5), 277.Google Scholar
  16. National Committee for Digital Cartographic Data Standards, 1988. The Proposed Standard for Digital Cartographic Data. The American Cartographer, 15[1], 9–140.Google Scholar
  17. NCGIA (National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis), 1989. The research plan of the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 117–136.Google Scholar
  18. Rosch, E., 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. in T. E. Moore (editor), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rosch, E., 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (editors) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, E. E., and Medin, D. L., 1981. Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Velázquez de la Cadena, Mariano, 1973. A New Pronouncing Dictionary of the Spanish and English Languages (compiled with Edward Gray and Juan L. Iribas). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Whorf, B. L., 1940. Science and linguistics. Technology Review (M.I.T.), 42(6) Reprinted in Carroll, John B., editor, 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, pp. 207–219.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Mark
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Department of GeographyState University of New York at BuffaloBuffalo

Personalised recommendations