[Geowanking] Critical Theory

[Alan Keown]

Point taken Eric, though I am only thinking of the data. 

 

To me the visualisation is a completely different game. 

 

Cheers

AlanK

 

 

 

  _____  

From: geowanking-bounces at lists.burri.to
[mailto:geowanking-bounces at lists.burri.to] On Behalf Of Eric Wolf
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2008 12:24 PM
To: geowanking at lists.burri.to
Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Critical Theory

 

If we had a metamodel and the appropriate ontologies for "tagging" the raw
data then we would have the basics for building a semantic geoweb - or am I
being too simplistic?

 

Nail -> Head...

Except that the front end processing you suggest - through automated
generalization - doesn't quite work. See the discussion of "GIS Maps" on
James Fee's blog:

http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2008/06/09/that-looks-like-a-gis-map/

There is another process of semantic interpretation that occurs during
generalization. Using automated generalization routines results in maps that
lack semantic richness.

So a semantic geoweb would be good for more natural-language querying of
spatial information - but the display will be a simple graph without the
application of similar semantic principles to the visualization design
process.

-Eric

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/attachments/20080703/e6451cde/attachment-0003.html>