Experiments to Examine the Situated Nature of Geoscientific Concepts

ABSTRACT Ontologies are being developed in many geoscientific domains. They are typically populated with two types of concepts: upper-level concepts that apply across many or all domains, and domain concepts that apply only within a specific domain. Previous work has refined this distinction by identifying a particular type of domain concept, called a situated concept, which is dependent on specific processes (natural, social, scientific, or possibly machine) for its meaning and is instantiated amongst entities within a specific geographical and historical context. In this paper we present new support for situated geoscientific concepts, building on our previous research that argues for the importance of situations in the development and use of concepts related to geoscientific field mapping. The new results are obtained by using statistical techniques to further analyze three geologists' field data over time, to better test the hypothesis that the concepts developed by the geologists to classify objects on the map are in fact situated. The field data are compared to each other, and to the concepts developed by the team. Differences found between and within individuals' data for three map concepts provide strong support for the idea that the concepts are variably influenced by data, theory, and natural and human situations. From this increased corroboration of situated concepts we suggest two implications for domain ontologies: (1) a delineation between situated domain concepts and non-situated domain concepts; and (2) recognition that representation of reliable meaning involves the capture of historical and geographical context for situated concepts.

[1]  David M. Mark,et al.  Geographical categories: an ontological investigation , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Learning geoscience categories in Situ: implications for geographic knowledge representation , 2001, GIS '01.

[3]  R. Millikan.  On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts , 2000 .

[4]  Barry Smith,et al.  Ontology and Geographic Kinds , 1998 .

[5]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[6]  Barry Smith,et al.  SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology , 2004, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[7]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Development and test of an error model for categorical data , 1992, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[8]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  L. Barsalou.  Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  John W. Sammon,et al.  A Nonlinear Mapping for Data Structure Analysis , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[11]  David M. Mark,et al.  Landscape Categories in Yindjibarndi: Ontology, Environment, and Language , 2003, COSIT.

[12]  Boyan Brodaric,et al.  The design of GSC FieldLog: ontology-based software for computer aided geological field mapping , 2004, Comput. Geosci..

[13]  E. Rosch,et al.  Structural bases of typicality effects. , 1976 .

[14]  M. V. Velzen,et al.  Self-organizing maps , 2007 .

[15]  L. Komatsu.  Recent views of conceptual structure , 1992 .

[16]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Perceiving and remembering:Category stability, variability, and development , 1997 .

[17]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  What Are Sports Grounds? Or: Why Semantics Requires Interoperability , 1999, INTEROP.

[18]  Frederico T. Fonseca,et al.  Using Ontologies for Integrated Geographic Information Systems , 2002, Trans. GIS.

[19]  Gregory J. Feist,et al.  The Psychology of Science : Review and Integration of a Nascent Discipline , 1998 .

[20]  N. Foo.  Conceptual Spaces—The Geometry of Thought , 2022 .

[21]  P. J. Clark,et al.  Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in Populations , 1954 .

[22]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  The art and science of mapping: computing geological categories from field data , 2004, Comput. Geosci..

[23]  Gregory B. Pasternack,et al.  Volcanic lake systematics I. Physical constraints , 1997 .

[24]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Distinguishing Instances and Evidence of Geographical Concepts for Geospatial Database Design , 2002, GIScience.

[25]  Cullen Schaffer,et al.  Selecting a classification method by cross-validation , 1993, Machine Learning.

[26]  M. Violet Gray,et al.  Classification as an Impediment to Reliable and Valid Use of Spatial Information: A Disaggregate Approach , 1997, COSIT.

[27]  Robert G. Raskin,et al.  Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET) , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[28]  R. R. Compton.  Geology in the Field , 1985, Nature.

[29]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  On the Interaction of Theory and Data in Concept Learning , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  T. Bittner.  An Ontology for Spatio-temporal Databases , 2001 .

[31]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[32]  Andrew U. Frank,et al.  Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[33]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[34]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Sweetening WORDNET with DOLCE , 2003, AI Mag..

[35]  Gregory B. Pasternack,et al.  The geochemistry of the Keli Mutu crater lakes, Flores, Indonesia. , 1994 .

[36]  Barry Smith,et al.  Ontology with Human Subjects Testing: An Empirical Investigation of Geographic Categories , 1998 .

[37]  W. A. Labuschagne.  Review: Peter Gärdenfors, Conceptual Spaces: "The Geometry of Thought" (Cambridge Mass.: MIT, 2000) , 2005 .

[38]  M. Gahegan,et al.  Probing the Relationship Between Classification Error and Class Similarity , 2005 .

[39]  S. Laurence,et al.  Concepts and Cognitive Science , 1999 .

[40]  D. Medin,et al.  Concepts do more than categorize , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  Christian Helmut Wenzel.  On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts , 2004 .

[42]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontologies for geographic information processing , 2002 .

[43]  R. W. Le Maitre,et al.  Igneous Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms , 2002 .