Advertisement

Contested Nature of Place: Knowledge Mapping for Resolving Ontological Distinctions Between Geographical Concepts

  • Pragya Agarwal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3234)

Abstract

In the theoretical literature and geographical models, place is defined with reference to other spatial concepts, such as region, neighbourhood and space. The boundaries and distinctions between these concepts and place are not clear and the overlap in the semantic fields of these concepts is representative of the vagueness that exists in geographical concepts. This vagueness is a major issue in achieving interoperability in the geographical domain and for the development of a comprehensive geo-ontology. In this paper, the principles of conceptual structures are applied for mapping semantic correspondences between place and overlapping geographical concepts. Knowledge mapping is carried out for meaning negotiation from lexical analysis of syntactic proximities between concepts. Experiments with human subjects were performed to elicit the cognitive semantics inherent in conceptual schema of individuals. Distance and proximity measures resolve the cognitive semantics of the concepts. The results provide an indication of the overlap and distinctions between the semantic fields of nearby spatial concepts, and a foundation for defining the relationships and classifications to specify the ontological distinctions between geographic concepts.

Keywords

Semantic Relatedness Conceptual Space Semantic Space Similarity Judgement Proximity Measure 
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. 1.
    Agarwal, P.: Ontological Considerations in GIScience: A Review. International Journal of Geographical Information Science (in press)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barsalou, L., Yeh, W., Luka, B., Olseth, K., Mix, K., Wu, L.: Concepts and meaning. In: Beals, K., Cooke, G., Kathman, D., McCullough, K., Kita, S., Testen, D. (eds.) Chicago Linguistics Society 29: Papers from the Parasession on Conceptual Representations. University of Chicago:Linguistics Society, pp. 23–61 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Battig, W., Montague, W.: Category Norms for Verbal Items in 56 Categories: A Replication and Extension of the Connecticut Norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Suppl. 80(3, Part 2), 1–46 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bishr, Y.: Semantic Aspects of Interoperable GIS, ITC Publication No. 56, Enschede, NL (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyer, C.: Cyber Cities. Princeton Architectural Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canter, D.: The Facets of Place. In: Moore, G., Marans, R. (eds.) Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, vol. 4, pp. 109–148. Plenum, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christaller, W.: How I Discovered the Theory of Central Places: A Report about the Origin of Central Places. In: English, P., Mayfield, R. (eds.) Man Space and Environment, pp. 601–610. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan, J., Ley, D. (eds.): Place/Culture/Representation. Routledge, London (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felbaum, C.: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gardenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces as a Framework for Cognitive Semantics. In: Clark, A. (ed.) Philosophy and Cognitive Science, pp. 159–180. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goh, C.: Representing and Reasoning about Semantic Conflicts in Heterogeneous Information Sources. PhD Thesis, MIT (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golledge, R.: Place Recognition and Wayfinding: Making Sense of Space. Geoforum 23(2), 199–214 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hahn, U., Chater, N.: Concepts and Similarity. In: Lamberts, K., Shanks, D. (eds.) Knowledge, Concepts and Categories, pp. 43–92. Psychology Press, East Sussex (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hardt, D.: Sense and Reference in Dynamic Semantics. In: Dekker, P., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 333–348 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harrison, S., Dourish, P.: Re-place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. In: Ackerman, M. (ed.) Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Work, pp. 67–76. ACM, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jordan, T., Raubal, M., Gartrell, B., Egenhofer, M.: An Affordance-Based Model of Place in GIS. In: Poiker, T., Chrisman, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, International Geographical Union, pp. 98–109 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kohenen, T.: Self-Organising Maps, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakoff, G.: Cognitive Semantics. In: Eco, U., Santambrogio, M., Violi, P. (eds.) Meaning and Mental Representations, pp. 119–154. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lloyd, R., Patton, D., Cammack, R.: Basic-Level Geographic Categories. Professional Geographer 48(2), 181–194 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mark, D., Smith, B., Tversky, B.: Ontology and Geographic Objects: An Empirical Study of Cognitive Categorization. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 283–298. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mark, D., Egenhofer, M., Hirtle, S., Smith, B.: Ontological Foundations for Geographic Information Science, UCGIS Emerging Research Theme. In: McMaster, R., Usery, L. (eds.) Research Challenges in Geographic Information Science, John Wiley and Sons, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mark, D., Skupin, A., Smith, B.: Features, Objects, and Other Things: Ontological Distinctions in the Geographic Domain. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, pp. 488–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Massey, D.: Space, Place and Gender. Polity, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCullough, D.: Images of America: On the Road with Photographer David Plowden. Historic Preservation, 24–33 (July/August 1982)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Medin, D.L.: Concepts and Conceptual Structure. American Psychologist 44(12), 1469–1481 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller, G., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., Miller, K.: Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database (1993), ftp://ftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/5papers.pdf
  28. 28.
    Montello, D.: Regions in Geography: Process and Content. In: Duckham, M., Goodchild, M., Worboys, M. (eds.) Foundations of Geographic Information Science, pp. 173–189. Taylor & Francis, Abington (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patwardhan, S., Michelizzi, J., Pedersen, T.: WordNet-Similarity (2003), http://search.cpan.org/dist/WordNet-Similarity/./
  30. 30.
    Peacocke, C.: Interrelations: Concepts, Knowledge, Reference and Structure. Mind and Language 19(1), 85–98 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Putnam, H.: The Meaning of “Meaning”. In: Putnam, H. (ed.) Mind, Language, and Reality, pp. 215–271. Cambridge University Press, London (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Relph, E.: Place and Placelessness. Pion Press, London (1976)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schvaneveldt, R., Meyer, D.: Retrieval and Comparison Processes in Semantic Memory. In: Kornblum, S. (ed.) Attention and Performance IV, pp. 395–409. Academic Press, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schvaneveldt, R., McDonald, J.: Semantic Context and the Encoding of Words: Evidence for Two Modes of Stimulus Analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7, 673–687 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith, B., Mark, D.: Geographic Categories: An Ontological Investigation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(7), 591–612 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Starrs, P.F.: The Importance of Places, or, a Sense of Where You Are. Spectrum: The Journal of State Governments 67(3), 5–17 (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tuan, Y.-F.: Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press (1990)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tversky, A., Gati, I.: Similarity, Seperability and the Triangle Inequality. Psychological Review 89(4), 123–154 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Twigger-Ross, C., Uzzell, D.: Place and Identity Processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16(3), 205–220 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    UCGIS: Cognition of Geographic Information (1998), http://www.ucgis.org/priorities/research/research_white/1998%20Papers/cog.html
  41. 41.
    Vögele, T., Schlieder, C., Visser, U.: Intuitive Modelling of Place Name Regions for Spatial Information Retrieval. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M.F., Timpf, S. (eds.) COSIT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2825, pp. 239–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    VT: The Visual Thesauras Ontline, trial version (2003), http://www.visualthesaurus.com/online/index.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pragya Agarwal
    • 1
  1. 1.GIS Research Group, School of GeographyThe University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations