geographic objects and their categories barry smith & david m. mark university at buffalo
Post on 20-Dec-2015
212 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Geographic Objects and Their Categories
Barry Smith & David M. MarkUniversity at Buffalo
![Page 2: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
What is Ontology? Where Do Geographic Categories Come From?The Truth About EarthObjects and Fields: The Individuation ProblemData Standards and Cultural/Linguistic
RelativismSome Empirical ResultsSummary
![Page 3: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Ontology
Ontology studies the constituents of realityAn ontology of a given domain describes in
formal terms the constituents of reality within that domain
The ontology also describes the relations between these constituents, and also the relations between constituents of one domain and others
(Smith)
![Page 4: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Ontology of Geographic Things
Geographic things are not merely located in space, they typically are tied intrinsically to space in such a way that they inherit from space many of its structural (mereological, topological, geometrical) properties
The role and nature of boundaries is especially important
![Page 5: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Geographic Things, continued
Individuation criteria are much more likely to be ambiguous, and to vary across individuals and cultures, and
Classification (categorization) and individuation probably are not independent
![Page 6: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Where do Categories Come From?
Nature?Bargains within speech communities?Affordances?
![Page 7: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Are Categories in the World?
Natural Kinds “Cut nature at its joints”
This seems clearly to be the case for the biological world, including human artifacts and constructions
But does the inorganic world have these natural ‘joints’ between categories?
![Page 8: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Benjamin Lee Whorf
Sapir-Whorf and linguistic relativism “We cut nature up, organize it into concepts,
and ascribe significance as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way—an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. (Whorf, 1940, pp. 213-214.)
![Page 9: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Affordances
J. J. Gibson has provided a valuable account of the perceived world, which he presented as a prelude to his accounts of human visual perception
A key part of his model is the concept of affordances
![Page 10: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Affordances
“The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or evil.”
James J. Gibson, “The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.”
![Page 11: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Geographic Affordances
Conjecture: Parts of the environment gain meaning, become things, mainly according to the activities that they afford.
Parts of the Earth's surface that afford more or less the same activities may be considered to belong to the same category.
![Page 12: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Geographic Affordances
Mountains afford climbingMountains also afford navigation when
they serve as landmarks Lakes afford fishing, the obtaining of
drinking water, swimming, travel by boatForests afford wood gathering, hunting,
hiding from enemiesEtc.
![Page 13: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Some Truths: Water and Life
Some 70 percent of the surface of Earth is covered by liquid water, and the planet is surrounded by a gaseous envelope called the atmosphere.
Plants cover most parts of the land surface, and animals (including humans) move about among those plants.
![Page 14: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Ontology for Science?
A complete ontology of geographic phenomena will have to incorporate all of these scientific facts and more, but are they relevant to our current effort to describe primary geographic theory, Naive geography, geography relevant to action?
![Page 15: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Land Forms
Forces from above and below have shaped the form of the surface of Earth and other rock planets.
The influence of gravity is a dominant factor—loose material tends to move away from high areas toward lower ones in a process generally termed erosion.
![Page 16: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Land Forms
Steeper slopes are less stable than gentle ones and so over time there is a tendency toward leveling unless other forces act against that.
Overhanging cliffs are extremely rare, so the elevation of the Earth's surface can be conceptualized as a single-valued function of horizontal position, that is, as a continuous field.
![Page 17: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Land Forms
Generally speaking, this is how science has modeled the geometry of the Earth's surface.
Scientists who attempt to account for or model hydrology and sediment transport conceptualize the Earth's surface as composed of slope gradients and orientations over a field of elevations.
![Page 18: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Land Forms
This idea of the single-valued field of elevations as a representation of the form of the Earth's surface has been incorporated implicitly or explicitly into representations of earth form developed for computers in the 1950s and since.
![Page 19: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Topography Experienced
The topographic environment as experienced by people is very different from this
It is the same environment, of course, but experienced through human senses in the context of human activities and needs.
![Page 20: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Topography Experienced
When viewed from the surface of the Earth by a creature between 1 and 2 meters tall, variations of surface elevation of tens, hundreds, or thousands of meters dominate the experienced landscape, while at the same time, the curvature of the geoid, of the horizontal, is almost imperceptible.
![Page 21: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Topography Experienced
When people see, learn, and describe a landscape, they do not think of it as a field or surface.
Rather, they consider it to be composed of objects or things, presumably based on some combination of gestalt visual perception and the perception of affordances.
![Page 22: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Topography Experienced
Visual perception tends to identify convex surfaces are forming objects, and Gibson wrote of detached objects as having completely closed surfaces making them moveable, or as attached objects that forms parts of the surfaces of larger things.
![Page 23: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Topography Experienced
The perceived surface of the Earth appears to follow this principle and to be dominated by convex rather than concave parts.
![Page 24: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Topography Experienced
In an experiment to be detailed later, in which subjects were asked to list examples of geographic features, objects, or things, mountain was the most frequent example, listed by 151 of 263 subjects.
A secondary form of land convexity, hill, was listed somewhat more often (by 43 subjects) than was the most frequent concave form, valley (39 subjects).
![Page 25: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Topography Experienced
Evidently, mountains are the quintessential geographic things to everyday people, yet they hardly appear in the scientific models. Nor do they appear as objects in our geographic databases.
![Page 26: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Topography Experienced
Mountains and the like also have been neglected in philosophers' ontologies (e.g. Aristotle), which have taken as their paradigm for objects complete moveable things with their own boundaries (such as people, or atoms, or planets), what Gibson called "detatched objects".
![Page 27: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Objects and Fields: The Individuation Problem
Do mountains really exist?
![Page 28: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Do mountains really exist?
Mont Blanc
![Page 30: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Do mountains really exist?
Yes, obviously! But what does “exist” mean here?Do things (objects? entities?) exist that
are members of the category “mountain”?Perhaps “mountains” are just convex parts
of the elevation fields
![Page 32: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Which part is Mount Everest?
![Page 33: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Data Exchange Standards
and Linguistic Relativism
Standard Facilitate Data ExchangeCommon Ontology facilitates Semantic
InteroperabilityBut what about cultural or linguistic
differences in categories?An Example: Étangs
![Page 34: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Semantics for Geospatial Data Exchange
An Example from the DIGEST standard (Digital Geographic Information Working Group, DGIWG)
BH080: A body of water surrounded by land
US Lake / Pond
FR Lac / Étang
GE See / Teich
IT Lago / Stagno
NL Meer / Plas / Vijver
SP Lago / Laguna
UK Lake / Pond
![Page 35: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Semantics for Geospatial Data Exchange
Are “ponds” in English the same as “étangs” en Français?
BH080: A body of water surrounded by land
US Lake / Pond
FR Lac / Étang
GE See / Teich
IT Lago / Stagno
NL Meer / Plas / Vijver
SP Lago / Laguna
UK Lake / Pond
![Page 36: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Étang de Berre
Avec ses 75 km de périphérie et une profondeur ne dépassant pas 9 mètres, cet étang gigantesque est relié à la Méditerrannée par un canal à l'ouest, et par un souterrain à l'est, en direction de Marseille
![Page 37: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Things are not always what they say they are ...
![Page 38: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Étang de Berre
Ceci n’est pas un «pond»!
![Page 39: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Étang de Berre
So, is it a lake?
![Page 40: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Étang de Berre
No! In English it would be called a “lagoon”!
![Page 41: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Another Kind of Water Body: Lagoon
BH190: Open body of water separated fromthe sea by sand bank or coral reef
US Lagoon / Reef Pool
FR Lagon / Lagune
GE Lagune
IT Laguna
NL Lagune / Strandmeer
SP Albufera
UK Lagoon / Reef Pool
![Page 42: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Conceptual Model for Water Bodies
“A body of water surrounded by land”“Open body of water separated from the sea by a sand
bank or coral reef”
Kinds of water bodies may be distinguished by Size Origin Water quality ...
![Page 43: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
}-
Conceptual Model for Water Bodies
![Page 44: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Different Languages
Different languages may give different weights to these factors
Consider English and French
![Page 45: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Geographic Categories
Some Empirical Results
![Page 49: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Category Norms (following Battig and Montague, 1969)
“For each of the following categories, please write down as many items included in that category as you can in 30 seconds, in whatever order they happen to occur to you”
Subjects were then given a series of category labels
![Page 50: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Subjects
263 students from the “World Civilization” general education course at UB, Fall 2000
Additional subjects in Finland, Croatia, Poland, Guatemala, and England
![Page 51: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
What Difference Does the Exact Question Make?a kind of geographic feature a kind of geographic objectsomething that could be portrayed on a
map(concept, entity, phenomenon)
![Page 52: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
English Norms, ‘feature’ highest
term feature object map-pable
total F
mountain 48 23 25 96river 35 18 31 84lake 33 13 21 67ocean 27 16 18 61hill 20 9 0 29valley 21 7 0 28plain 19 6 1 26plateau 17 4 0 21desert 14 6 0 20volcano 10 4 0 14stream 6 2 1 9
![Page 53: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
English Norms, ‘object’ highest
term feature object map-pable
total F
map 0 17 0 17
globe 0 11 0 11
peninsula 8 10 1 19
compass 0 8 2 10
land 2 6 0 8
rock 1 6 0 7
atlas 0 6 0 6
![Page 54: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
English Norms, ‘mappable’ highest
term feature object map-pable
total F
city 1 4 30 35road 1 2 27 30country 2 6 23 31state 0 5 15 20continent 1 10 12 23town 0 5 8 13street 0 1 8 9highway 1 0 7 8park 0 0 6 6county 0 2 5 7building 0 1 5 6
![Page 55: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
information systems databases organizations language-communities sciences religions maps
![Page 56: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
= a system of concepts pertaining to a given domain
... concepts that are more or less coherently specified
Each involves a certain conceptualization
![Page 57: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
– a common system of concepts in terms of which different information communities can talk to each other and exchange data
Why make ontologies?
To provide a stable forum for translation and interoperability as between different conceptualizations
![Page 58: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
KR Ontology
deals with the generated correlates of both good and bad conceptualizations
– with surrogate created worlds – with ‘universes of discourse’
![Page 59: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Not all conceptualizations are equal
Bad conceptualizations: story-telling, myth-making, legacy information systems based on insecure foundations ...
Good conceptualizations: science (mostly) what else?
![Page 60: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Two sorts of conceptualizations bad conceptualizations = relate merely to a created, surrogate world
good conceptualizations = transparent to some independent reality beyond
![Page 61: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
A transparent conceptualization is a partition of reality
![Page 62: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Ontology should foster transparent conceptualizations (veridical perspectives on reality)
It should provide a constraint on conceptualizations (Guarino)
![Page 63: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Transparent conceptualizations
The sciences provide us with a good first clue as to what these are
![Page 64: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Scientific conceptualizations = those based on theories which
have survived rigorous empirical tests
![Page 65: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Science and prediction
The perspectival cuts through reality yielded by the different sciences capture dimensions of reality in relation to which we can develop predictive theories
![Page 66: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Scientific conceptualizations are transparent
they illuminate some features of the underlying realityand trace over others
![Page 67: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Objects vs. fields
form
matter
![Page 68: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
scientific reality = (roughly) fields(matter + energy)
common-sense reality = objects
plus attributes and processes
quantitative
qualitative
![Page 69: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
The opposition objects vs. fields in the realm of accidents too
![Page 70: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Objects vs. fields in the realm of accidents too
form
matter
R=175, G=54, B=24
‘red’
![Page 71: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Two different perspectives on reality:
the qualitative (objects, attributes, processes)
the quantitative (fields: matter, energy)
both transparent to the reality beyond
![Page 72: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
(one is cruder, coarser than the other)
![Page 73: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Two different perspectives:
Aristotle helps us with the qualitative perspective (of objects, attributes, processes)
Science helps us with the quantitative perspective (of fields)
![Page 74: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 75: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 76: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Theory of vagueness
How can -based conceptualizations be transparent, if the world is shaped like this
?
![Page 77: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
via some sort of distortion ?
(so that common-sense concepts would be like cookie-cutters, cleaving reality at non-existing joints) ?
![Page 78: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
No: common sense does not lie
... our common-sense concepts are soft at the edges
and are employed by us
accordingly
![Page 79: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
they have a built-in sensitivity to thedifference between focal and borderline instances
focus
penumbra
![Page 80: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Fuzzy logic
illegitimately transforms this qualitative space into a quantitative field of precise probability assignments
x is red with probability 93.748 %
![Page 81: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
How to produce a qualitative theory of vagueness ?
– a theory of the way in which our common-sense concepts apply to reality in such a way as to comprehend an opposition between focal and penumbral instances ?
![Page 82: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 83: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 84: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Negative parts (holes): not made of matter
Aristotle neglects features of the common-sense world not made of matter
Examples: property rightsobligations
institutionsspatial regionsspatial boundaries
![Page 85: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 86: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 87: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
In the realm of table-top space boundaries are not ontologically problematic:
table-top objects have clear boundariesthey never share boundariesthey never overlap they do not flow, merge, splitthey do not change their genus as they
growthey do not change their genus from
season to season
![Page 88: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
they do not change their genus according to what they abut
contrast: mountain – valley
![Page 89: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Bona Fide Objects
The objects of table-top space have bona fide boundaries
= boundaries which exist independently of our cognition
![Page 90: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Fiat Boundaries
= boundaries which exist only in virtue of our demarcations
Fiat objects = objects with fiat boundaries
![Page 91: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Examples of fiat objects Two-dimensional fiat objects: census tracts postal districts Wyoming
![Page 92: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Three-dimensional fiat objects
the Northern hemisphere the 3-dimensional parcels to
which mineral rights are assigned the Klingon Empire
![Page 93: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Controlled Airspace
![Page 94: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 95: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
How to produce a theory of the common-sense geographic realm ?
1. theory of vagueness
2. mereology (theory of wholes and parts, including negative parts)
3. the theory of fiat boundaries
4. qualitative geometry and qualitative topology
![Page 96: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
Holes in the ground
Bone fide boundaries at the floor and walls
with a fiat lid
![Page 97: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
What is a valley ?
![Page 98: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
Grand Canyon
![Page 99: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
mountain is the most prominent kind of geographic object in the common-sense ontology. But it is absent from the scientific ontology as a kind of thing
... the latter includes slope steepness and direction at every point, but represented as fields
What is a mountain ?
![Page 100: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
Mountain bona fide upper boundaries with fiat base:
![Page 101: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
Basic Formal OntologyConcrete Entity
[Exists in Space and Time]Concrete Entity
[Exists in Space and Time]
Entity in 3-D Ontology[Endure. No Temporal Parts]
Entity in 3-D Ontology[Endure. No Temporal Parts]
Entity in 4-D Ontology[Perdure. Unfold in Time]Entity in 4-D Ontology
[Perdure. Unfold in Time]
Processual EntityProcessual EntitySpatio-Temporal Region
Dim = T, T+0, T+1, T+2, T+3Spatio-Temporal Region
Dim = T, T+0, T+1, T+2, T+3
Spatial Regionof Dimension 0,1,2,3
Spatial Regionof Dimension 0,1,2,3 Dependent EntityDependent Entity
Independent EntityIndependent Entity
Quality (Your Redness, My Tallness)[Form Quality Regions/Scales]
Quality (Your Redness, My Tallness)[Form Quality Regions/Scales]
Role, Function, PowerHave realizations (called: Processes)
Role, Function, PowerHave realizations (called: Processes)
Substance[maximally connected causal unity]
Substance[maximally connected causal unity]
Boundary of Substance *Fiat or Bona Fide or MixedBoundary of Substance *
Fiat or Bona Fide or Mixed
Aggregate of Substances * (includes masses of stuff? liquids?)
Aggregate of Substances * (includes masses of stuff? liquids?)
Fiat Part of Substance * Nose, Ear, Mountain
Fiat Part of Substance * Nose, Ear, Mountain
Process [Has Unity]Clinical trial; exercise of role
Process [Has Unity]Clinical trial; exercise of role
Fiat Part of Process*Fiat Part of Process*
Aggregate of Processes*Aggregate of Processes*
Instantaneous Temporal Boundary of Process (= Ingarden’s 'Event’)*
Instantaneous Temporal Boundary of Process (= Ingarden’s 'Event’)*
Quasi-ProcessJohn’s Youth. John’s Life
Quasi-ProcessJohn’s Youth. John’s Life
Quasi-Quality Prices, Values, Obligations
Quasi-Quality Prices, Values, Obligations
Quasi-SubstanceChurch, College, Corporation
Quasi-SubstanceChurch, College, Corporation
Quasi-Role/Function/PowerThe Functions of the PresidentQuasi-Role/Function/Power
The Functions of the President
![Page 102: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Basic Formal OntologyConcrete Entity
[Exists in Space and Time]Concrete Entity
[Exists in Space and Time]
Entity in 3-D Ontology[Endure. No Temporal Parts]
Entity in 3-D Ontology[Endure. No Temporal Parts]
Entity in 4-D Ontology[Perdure. Unfold in Time]Entity in 4-D Ontology
[Perdure. Unfold in Time]
Processual EntityProcessual EntitySpatio-Temporal Region
Dim = T, T+0, T+1, T+2, T+3Spatio-Temporal Region
Dim = T, T+0, T+1, T+2, T+3
Spatial Regionof Dimension 0,1,2,3
Spatial Regionof Dimension 0,1,2,3 Dependent EntityDependent Entity
Independent EntityIndependent Entity
Quality (Your Redness, My Tallness)[Form Quality Regions/Scales]
Quality (Your Redness, My Tallness)[Form Quality Regions/Scales]
Role, Function, PowerHave realizations (called: Processes)
Role, Function, PowerHave realizations (called: Processes)
Substance[maximally connected causal unity]
Substance[maximally connected causal unity]
Boundary of Substance *Fiat or Bona Fide or MixedBoundary of Substance *
Fiat or Bona Fide or Mixed
Aggregate of Substances * (includes masses of stuff? liquids?)
Aggregate of Substances * (includes masses of stuff? liquids?)
Fiat Part of Substance * Nose, Ear, Mountain
Fiat Part of Substance * Nose, Ear, Mountain
Process [Has Unity]Clinical trial; exercise of role
Process [Has Unity]Clinical trial; exercise of role
Fiat Part of Process*Fiat Part of Process*
Aggregate of Processes*Aggregate of Processes*
Instantaneous Temporal Boundary of Process (= Ingarden’s 'Event’)*
Instantaneous Temporal Boundary of Process (= Ingarden’s 'Event’)*
Quasi-ProcessJohn’s Youth. John’s Life
Quasi-ProcessJohn’s Youth. John’s Life
Quasi-Quality Prices, Values, Obligations
Quasi-Quality Prices, Values, Obligations
Quasi-SubstanceChurch, College, Corporation
Quasi-SubstanceChurch, College, Corporation
Quasi-Role/Function/PowerThe Functions of the PresidentQuasi-Role/Function/Power
The Functions of the President
![Page 103: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Basic Formal OntologyConcrete Entity
[Exists in Space and Time]Concrete Entity
[Exists in Space and Time]
Entity in 3-D Ontology[Endure. No Temporal Parts]
Entity in 3-D Ontology[Endure. No Temporal Parts]
Independent EntityIndependent Entity
Substance[maximally connected causal unity]
Substance[maximally connected causal unity]
Aggregate of Substances * (includes masses of stuff? liquids?)
Aggregate of Substances * (includes masses of stuff? liquids?)
Fiat Part of Substance * Nose, Ear, Mountain
Fiat Part of Substance * Nose, Ear, Mountain
![Page 104: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
where does the mountain start ?
![Page 105: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
Everest
Mount Everest
![Page 106: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
Mont Blanc from Chatel
![Page 107: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
Question:
Are mountains bona fide or fiat objects?
Did mountains exist before human cognitive agents came along?
![Page 108: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
Bona fide mountain (tops)
Miquelon_and_Saint_Pierre_Island
![Page 109: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
Are all holes fiat objects ?
hollows
tunnels
cavities
![Page 110: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Did hollows and tunnels exist before human cognitive agents came along?
Rabbit holes, worm holes
Geospatial forms as precursors of evolution
![Page 111: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
What is a lake ?
![Page 112: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
A filled hole ?
![Page 113: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
What is a lake ?
1. a three-dimensional body of water ?
2. a two-dimensional sheet of water ?
3. a depression (hole) in the Earth’s surface (possibly) filled with water ?
are dry lakes lakes?or merely places where lakes used to be?
![Page 114: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
Each of these has problems: If we take:
1. a lake is three-dimensional body of water
then a lake can never be half full
Open problem: ontology of liquids
![Page 115: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
What’s the point ?
![Page 116: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
Common-Sense Reality
Why is it important that we get the ontology of common-sense reality right?
![Page 117: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
Science is important for engineering Well, ... it’s important that we get the
ontology of physics right because physics is a basis for engineering:
... bridges and airplanes are
engineering products in which physical reality is embedded
![Page 118: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
Many biological sciences relate to the common-sense world of qualitative forms:
Ecology (need for ontology of niches or habitats)
Biogeography
Palaeontology = science of common-sense reality as it existed before human beings evolved
![Page 119: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
Why is naive ontology important?
It’s important that we get the ontology of common-sense reality right ...
... because it is common-sense ontology which underlies medicine
![Page 120: Geographic Objects and Their Categories Barry Smith & David M. Mark University at Buffalo](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d545503460f94a303a6/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
where does the mountain start ?