Abstract: Cognitive categories in the geographic realm appear to manifest certain special features as contrasted with categories for objects at surveyable scales. We have argued that these features reflect specific ontological characteristics of geographic objects. This paper presents hypotheses as to the nature of the features mentioned, reviews previous empirical work on geographic categories, and presents the results of pilot experiments that used English-speaking subjects to test our hypotheses. Our experiments show geographic categories to be similar to their non-geographic counterparts in the ways in which they generate instances of different relative frequencies at different levels. Other tests, however, provide preliminary evidence for the existence of important differences in subjects ’ categorizations of geographic and non-geographic objects, and suggest further experimental work especially with regard to the role in cognitive categorization of different types of objectboundaries at different scales.

The paper presents a framework for the formulation and testing of ontological theories embodied in human cognition, concentrating primarily on the domain of geographic categories. Evidence for and against alternative theories of cognitive categories, for example on the part of E. Rosch and her associates, has been hitherto based primarily on studies of categorization of entities of table-top space (pets, tools, fruits). We hypothesize that the structure of our categories does not remain constant as we move from categories of objects at manipulable scales to geographic categories such as nation, mountain, river. More precisely: Geographic objects are not merely located in space, they are tied intrinsically to space in such a way that they inherit from space many of its structural (mereological, topological, geometrical) properties. Categorization in the geographic world is often size- or scaledependent (consider: pond, lake, sea, ocean), and to a much greater extent than in the world of tabletop space, the realization that a thing or type of thing exists at all in the geographic world may have individual or cultural variability. Geographic objects are in very many cases the products of delineation within a continuum, and the boundaries of such objects are themselves highly salient phenomena for purposes of categorization. A battery of experiments is described to test these hypotheses and to serve as a basis for more detailed ontological theorizing. 1.

The integration of information of different kinds, such as spatial and alphanumeric at different levels of detail, is a challenge. While a solution is not reached, it is widely recognized that the need to integrate information is so pressing that it does not matter if detail is lost, as long as integration is achieved. This paper shows the potential for information retrieval at different levels of granularity inside the framework of information systems based on ontologies. Ontologies are theories that use a specific vocabulary to describe entities, classes, properties and functions related to a certain view of the world. The use of an ontology, translated into an active information system component, leads to Ontology-Driven Information Systems and, in the specific case of GIS, leads to what we call Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems.

Human-subjects testing based on a sound formal model is outlined as an effective way to evaluate and refine computational models of spatial relations. The cognitive response of a subject (person) to a realworld situation depends on the characteristic of the situation and the characteristics of the subject. Spatial entities can be characterized by topological relations, metric, scale (scope), kinds of phenomena (semantics), motion (time), and (for maps and displays) graphic presentation. Subjects' responses may vary according to their natural languages, their cultures, and individual characteristics such as gender, age, and handedness. Given this conceptual background, seven human-subjects testing protocols are introduced. Each test is described, and results of applications of these tests are summarized where possible. The tests are compared with their requirements, and the different aspects of human spatial cognition that they might test. Lastly, a program for applying these tests and refining the formal models based on test results is presented.

Humans think and talk about regions and spatial relations imprecisely, in terms of vague concepts that are fuzzy or probabilistic (e.g., downtown, near). The functionality of geographic information systems will be increased if they can interpret vague queries. We discuss traditional and newer approaches to defining and modeling spatial queries. Most of the research on vague concepts in information systems has focussed on mathematical and computational implementation. To complement this, we discuss behavioral-science methods for determining the referents of vague spatial terms, particularly vague regions. We present a study of the empirical determination of downtown Santa Barbara. We conclude with a discussion of prospects and problems for integrating vague concepts into geographic information systems.

Integration of geographic information has increased in importance because of new possibilities arising from the interconnected world and the increasing availability of geographic information. Ontologies support the creation of conceptual models and help with information integration. In this paper, we propose a way to link the formal representation of semantics (i.e., ontologies) to conceptual schemas describing information stored in databases. The main result is a formal framework that explains a mapping between a spatial ontology and a geographic conceptual schema. The mapping of ontologies to conceptual schemas is made using three different levels of abstraction: formal, domain, and application levels. At the formal level, highly abstract concepts are used to express the schema and the ontologies. At the domain level, the schema is regarded as an instance of a generic data model. At the application level, we focus on the particular case of geographic applications. We also discuss the in¯uence of ontologies in both the traditional and geographic systems development methodologies, with an emphasis on the conceptual design phase. Keywords: systems ontologies, geographic conceptual models, geographic data modeling, geographic information 1.

Abstract not found

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 natura l 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.

Abstract. This paper describes categories for landscape elements in the language of the Yindjibarndi people, a community of Indigenous Australians. Yindjibarndi terms for topographic features were obtained from dictionaries, and augmented and refined through discussions with local language experts in the Yindjibarndi community. In this paper, the Yindjibarndi terms for convex landforms and for water bodies are compared to English-language terms used to describe the Australian landscape, both in general terms and in the AUSLIG Gazetteer. The investigation found fundamental differences between the two conceptual systems at the basic level, supporting the notion that people from different places and cultures may use different categories for geographic features.

9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 # # $% # & '( *),+-/.0-12 # 34 6 647 #8# 4 69 # '4 :04 77 64 12 !!" " 50166 '>429?,29 7 64 12 !!" " 50166-48432 BC447 @?, # !4 8 @ # # !D # E4F! (' 2 ! # 34 2 ! (' 49994-42768 =?, . 50262-44184 # 4 1352 L IJ (' 49994-42768 =?, # 5. Keywords R;5L), # '>:+ 3 # L-/ 2 3546-35892 KW@N,X # :[,75L-1\U*4. 1 Introduction ...