TY - GEN
T1 - Features, objects, and other things
T2 - 5th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, COSIT 2001
AU - Mark, David M.
AU - Skupin, André
AU - Smith, Barry
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001.
PY - 2001
Y1 - 2001
N2 - Two hundred and sixty-three subjects each gave examples for one of five geographic categories: geographic features, geographic objects, geographic concepts, something geographic, and something that could be portrayed on a map. The frequencies of various responses were significantly different, indicating that the basic ontological terms feature, object, etc., are not interchangeable but carry different meanings when combined with adjectives indicating geographic or mappable. For all of the test phrases involving geographic, responses were predominantly natural features such as mountain, river, lake, ocean, hill. Artificial geographic features such as town and city were listed hardly at all for geographic categories, an outcome that contrasts sharply with the disciplinary self-understanding of academic geography. However, geographic artifacts and fiat objects, such as roads, cities, boundaries, countries, and states, were frequently listed by the subjects responding to the phrase something that could be portrayed on a map. In this paper, we present the results of these experiments in visual form, and provide interpretations and implications for further research.
AB - Two hundred and sixty-three subjects each gave examples for one of five geographic categories: geographic features, geographic objects, geographic concepts, something geographic, and something that could be portrayed on a map. The frequencies of various responses were significantly different, indicating that the basic ontological terms feature, object, etc., are not interchangeable but carry different meanings when combined with adjectives indicating geographic or mappable. For all of the test phrases involving geographic, responses were predominantly natural features such as mountain, river, lake, ocean, hill. Artificial geographic features such as town and city were listed hardly at all for geographic categories, an outcome that contrasts sharply with the disciplinary self-understanding of academic geography. However, geographic artifacts and fiat objects, such as roads, cities, boundaries, countries, and states, were frequently listed by the subjects responding to the phrase something that could be portrayed on a map. In this paper, we present the results of these experiments in visual form, and provide interpretations and implications for further research.
KW - Geographic categories
KW - Geographic information systems
KW - Geographic ontology
KW - GIS
KW - Human subjects testing
KW - Mereotopology
KW - Prototypes
KW - Selforganizing maps
KW - Spatial cognition
KW - Spatialization
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84937542617
U2 - 10.1007/3-540-45424-1_33
DO - 10.1007/3-540-45424-1_33
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84937542617
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 489
EP - 502
BT - Spatial Information Theory
A2 - Montello, Daniel R.
PB - Springer Verlag
Y2 - 19 September 2001 through 23 September 2001
ER -