Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
the use of a number of coordinate geometry algorithms or “tricks”. The formulae and
corresponding code can simply be shown and explained to the GIScientist and then it
can be packaged “lego-like” [33] and combined into a GIS program. Essentially a
somewhat similar approach is taken in Esri's ArcGIS ModelBuilder function.
Eventually, of course, the editors of BoK 1.0 expanded Gaudet et al.'s 39 compe-
tencies (DiBiase [9] provides a brief discussion of the inadequacies of the former
model) into the ten knowledge areas mentioned above (Analytical Methods; Concep-
tual Foundations; Cartography and Visualization; Design Aspects; Data Modeling;
Data Manipulation; Geocomputation; Geospatial Data; GIS&T and Society; Organi-
zational and Institutional Aspects), and then subdivided these into 73 units and 330
topics. The topics were up-to-date and comprehensive and were supplemented by
extensive Reading Lists for each of the ten knowledge areas. Unfortunately, these
reading lists were not incorporated and linked in to the topics and thus tended to be
quite general and became immediately dated. Most importantly the BoK 1.0, unlike
the Core Curricula of the NCGIA, did not explain how to do anything. It was not a
text. GIS instructors would have to write their own lectures and, more significantly,
their own lab exercises. In the age of the Internet providing a list of 330 topics that
various GIS course is a useful contribution for once the terminology is known the GIS
instructor can use tools such as Wikipedia, supplemented with Google Scholar
searches, to build their own lecture material. Moreover, software companies such as
Esri, which has its own publishing company, have been quick to supply tutorial ma-
nuals and courses (both hard copy and online) which provide the lab exercises needed
to gain familiarity in solving GIScience problems using commercial, GIS software.
This is true for both gaining a generic familiarity with the software (see, for example,
the text Mastering ArcGIS by Maribeth Price [28]) and for gaining fluency in specific
application domains such as Health GIS [21].
Although DiBiase et al. [12], Johnson [19], and Prager and Plewe [27] (all papers
authored or co-authored by contributors to the BoK 1.0) have written positively about
subsequent developments resulting from the publication of BoK 1.0, we have a less
sanguine view which will be discussed below. Prager and Plewe's evaluation, using
two courses to evaluate the curriculum, was particularly positive: “...the Body of
Knowledge enables the comparison of objectives, curriculum and actual outcomes
across multiple programmes in a way that has not been possible in the past. That the
domain knowledge is systematically encoded has the potential to enable the develop-
ment of a disciplinary ontology…”.
The editors of the BoK 1.0 were aware that they would need to develop a path to
the future, a method for continuously renewing the program that had been advocated.
Consequently, the final section of the BoK 1.0 is titled: “Where is the UCGIS Model
Curricula project headed?” There they suggested that “A frequently revised GIS&T
Body of Knowledge…. will be needed to help educational institutions respond to
needs of the dynamic GIS&T enterprise” [11]. To date this has not happened. More
specifically the editors list a set of products and services that the BoK 1.0 should have
helped to facilitate and these included: 1) self-assessment procedures for GIS&T de-
gree and certificate programs; 2) exemplar pathways that GIS students could follow to
pursue specific career objectives; 3) a second edition of the BoK 1.0. None of these
