Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
unit” and the “urban area” depending on the case), which lead to conflicting results.
The second example illustrates the possibility of a variety of points of view on the
same phenomenon. In both cases, the challenge consists of choosing the scales and
observable empirical objects that are the most relevant relative to the questions
asked. The keywords of this chapter are thus
objects
on the one hand, and
construction
,
representation
and
change
(of/in these objects) on the other hand. The
sense that will be given to these concepts throughout the topic, with the objective of
modeling phenomena embedded in space and happening in time, has to be defined.
Several points of view are to be taken into account, each with its own specificities.
That of the domain expert
3
(geographer and archaeologist in the context of this
topic) differs from that of the formal sciences (computer scientist, geomatician
4
as
well as philosophers). The objective of the former is to represent, describe and
understand a social or environmental phenomenon, for example, the strengthening of
educational inequalities, the growth differentials between cities, the dynamics of a
glacier, the changes in soil occupation, the evolution of the interaction scope of a
city during the middle ages or the practices and rhythms of individuals' mobility in
different spatial contexts (for example, a train station or a touristic place). The
objective of the latter is to build generic representation or modeling media,
independent of the types of questions and the studied objects. A geographer and a
geomatician will, therefore, have different points of view on geographic objects: for
example, in an analysis of the public space, a street may be defined as
“
a system of
places close to each other, connected through practices” [FLE 07]. This design just
overthrows the representation that is generally made in geographical information
systems where the street is most often represented by a line connecting places.
In addition, faced with the same empirical question, the points of view of domain
experts from different areas, for example, archaeologists and geographers, will also
differ, notably on how to apprehend time and space. In parallel, at the heart of the
formal sciences, including philosophy and information technology, the ways to
specify objects and processes at stake differ.
This diversity of points of view, rather than being a source of misunderstandings,
can be considered as an asset to the extent where the research for consistency that it
requires, constitutes in itself a step forward in the reasoning of the domain expert.
Furthermore, the precise conceptualization of the object of interest is necessary to
obtain an interpretable formal description that can be implemented on a computer
3 We will call “domain expert” the specialist of a field in the social sciences, raising questions
about a given thematic and having an expertise about the domain considered [LIV 10]. The
examples raised in this text will mainly fall under the fields of geography and archeology.
4 We will call geomatician the specialist in the science of geographic information, who raises
issues of formalization incorporating geographic reasoning. He/she is a specialist of computer
developments structured for the acquisition and implementation of geographical databases, for
information processing in dedicated systems and for the representation of this information.
