|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | [gislist] FW: topic change |
| Date: |
01/12/2007 08:55:00 AM |
| From: |
David Lamb |
|
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Landon Blake
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:04 PM
To: David Lamb
Subject: RE: [gislist] topic change
David,
That was an excellent post!
I want to address both of the topics you raised.
First of all, I agree that there is a clear distinction between the
"science" or "concept" of GIS and the "implementation" of the science.
As a GIS software developer I take the "concepts" and build the
"implementation" or application. I think you are correct when you
suggest that the dominance of ESRI software often confuses the
difference in these two things.
I found your topic about spatial representations even more interesting,
and something that I've never really thought about before. I could
immediately determine some alternative systems for "spatial"
representation:
[1] Surveyors work in a spatial reference system that is based on angles
and distances. This is sometimes known as a polar coordinate system.
Although surveyor's measurements typically expressed as Cartesian
coordinates in their final form, they do live for some time in this
other spatial representation.
[2] Stationing is used to measure the position of an object in relation
to a route. There is some GIS and CAD programs that have limited support
for this type of spatial reference system, but it could definitely be
better. This is something I hope to explore more in OpenJUMP in the
future.
[3] Street addressing is another form of spatial representation. This is
more commonly supported in GIS systems with tools like geocoding.
Thanks for the insightful redirection.
The Sunburned Surveyor
-----Original Message-----
From: gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com
[mailto:gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com] On Behalf Of David Lamb
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:00 PM
To: gislist@lists.geocomm.com
Subject: Re: [gislist] topic change
As I feebly try to steer the list in another direction.
I think this brings up a much more (personally) interesting question. I
would imagine that considering ESRI has such a huge market share of GIS
software, at least in the United States, that ESRI software must come up
a lot in a GIS question and answer setting. Of course, the argument
against that statement is "Why doesn't Geomedia come up as often?" What
I actually think this series of emails brings up again is the Tool vs.
Science debate. Is it possible to separate our tactile visions of GIS
(arcview, geomedia, manifold, mapinfo, grass, etc.), moving away from
the little black box, to get understanding of the "science"? Software
is so tied to GIS as a whole...and so are certain brands. You cannot
deny the role that ESRI has played in the GIS world. Perhaps the
broader issue is that some folks are tired of getting tool questions,
and want more science questions? I don't know, and don't want to put
words in peoples' mouths. I would imagine most people subscribing to
this list are GIS users rather than GISci researchers or academicians.
I personally think GIS can be it's own viable academic discipline, and
that there are numerous philosophical questions (ethical, ontological,
epistemological) that can be brought up and discussed. Unfortunately, on
a daily basis I use GIS as a tool to create and edit data, maps usually
being the end product: so my questions revolve around that more often
than not (and as a "mostly" ESRI user, the questions are about ESRI
products).
Anyway, here is a different sort of question I've been wondering about
in attempt to bring up a "discussion". Within the GIS world we have a
conception of space. The data model chapter in every textbook talks
about it. We conceptualize the world as points, lines, areas, and grids
for the most part. This conceptualization has roots in the west
(recently and historically). Now that GIS software has utilized this
conceptualization and is distributed across the world from the China to
Belgium, I wonder what impacts this standardization of space has on the
world at large. Is it unifying? Are we turning a blind eye on
different ways of representing the world around us? If you look at art
from different parts of the world, you will see how varied the idea of
space (and time) is, or for that matter look at some historical maps,
especially during the medieval period
(http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/EMwebpages/EML.html). Or are all the
fundamental forms a common thread throughout the world? Is a line in a
Japanese painting a line or is it called a line because of the western
concept of primitive objects? Perhaps I'm merging two totally different
thoughts into one. The idea of space, and the way we represent objects
in space? Is this topic a bit too much for a Thursday afternoon :)?
Excuse the jumble of sentences in this last paragraph. I've never asked
these sort
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
