Mike Goodchild's keynote - GISRUK 2010

1,648 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,648
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mike Goodchild's keynote - GISRUK 2010

  1. 1. Challenges in GIS Research Michael F. Goodchild University of California Santa Barbara
  2. 2. Thanks to… • Ordnance Survey of GB • SPLINT – Leicester, Nottingham, UCL • Organizers
  3. 3. GIS research • Since 1960s • Changing agenda – problems solved – technology advancing – social context evolving • What can we not yet do? – what remains to be discovered? – what new developments need attention?
  4. 4. Three topics • Spatio-temporal GIS • CyberGIS • Fundamental spatial concepts
  5. 5. Time is of the essence • Policy and public interest are driven by change (Frank) • E Everything th t h thi that happens h happens somewhere in space and time (Wegener) • Every major issue has a time scale – climate change (decades) – climate tipping points (years) – economic meltdown (months) – infectious diseases (weeks) ( ) – disasters (days)
  6. 6. How to design useful tools? • The Waterfall process? – define the application domain – sample it with use cases l ith – define the necessary functionality – design optimal data models • Is the domain all of spatiotemporal analysis and modeling? – from social to environmental • Or are there multiple domains? p – and what is driving them?
  7. 7. 1. Tracking • Movement of features in space and time – GPS – RFID – other technologies
  8. 8. Light-level geolocation (Stutchbury et al., Science 2/13/09) Purple Martin Wood Thrush
  9. 9. Tracks inferred from Flickr postings (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~crandall/papers/mapping09www.pdf) (http://www cs cornell edu/~crandall/papers/mapping09www pdf)
  10. 10. Functionality • Hägerstrand’s conceptual framework – new advances in theory • T k interpolation Track i t l ti – between infrequent samples • I f Inferences about activity b t ti it • Track convergence • Shih L Shih-Lung Sh ’ A S Shaw’s ArcScene extension i
  11. 11. 2. Snapshots • Barry Smith’s SNAP ontology • Time-series of remotely sensed images • Video • Change detection
  12. 12. Rondonia, Brazil, 1975, 1986, Rondonia Brazil 1975 1986 1992
  13. 13. 3. Polygon coverages • Reporting zones, cadaster • Gail Langran, Time in Geographic Information Systems, 1992 I f ti S t • National Historic GIS – reconciling change i reporting zones ili h in ti • z(i,t) = f[z(i,t-1),z(j,t),…] • S Serge Rey’s STARS – S R ’ Space-Time A l i Ti Analysis of Regional Systems
  14. 14. Comparative spatial analysis of the development of the Chinese and US economies through time, 1978-1998 Xinyue Ye, Bowling Green State University
  15. 15. 4. Cellular automata • A fixed raster of cells • A set of states for each cell • A set of rules that determine state transitions through time • PCRaster
  16. 16. Keith Clarke, UC Santa Barbara CA model of development based on transition probabilities as functions of slope, access to transportation zoning and states of neighboring slope transportation, zoning, cells
  17. 17. 5. Agent-based models • Discrete agents as geographic features • Moving, changing state • Rules governing states, behavior
  18. 18. 6. Events and transactions • The domain of the historian – events in space and time – li k d spatially linked ti ll • campaigns of armies – hierarchically related e a c ca y e a ed • the battle and the war • the meeting and the election – can GIS support historical scholarship? t hi t i l h l hi ? • and update the historical atlas
  19. 19. 7. Multidimensional data • Environmental data intensively sampled in time – with fi ed spatial s pport ith fixed support – NetCDF
  20. 20. One domain or seven? • All seven need the multidisciplinary tools of GIS – to interpret assess, and visualize res lts interpret, assess is ali e results – to package results for public consumption • Are there more (or fewer)?
  21. 21. Tasks for the research community • What are the research questions? – what are the use cases? – some ddomains are d i i driven b d t availability by data il bilit rather than science questions • What are the functions? – at what level of granularity? – standardized for discovery y – elusive even for traditional GIS • What are the data models? – the focus of much of the research to date
  22. 22. CyberGIS • GIS as a distributed enterprise – server-based GIS • S i Service-oriented architecture i t d hit t • Fully interoperable
  23. 23. Progress to date • Interoperable location referencing – coordinate transformations – geocoding addresses di dd – point-of-interest databases 34 deg 24 min 42.7 seconds north, 119 deg 52 min 14.4 sec west 236150m east, 3811560m north, UTM Zone 11 Northern Hemisphere US National Grid reference 11SKU36151156 909 West Campus Lane, Goleta, CA 93117, USA Mike Goodchild’s house
  24. 24. Standards • “Live” access: WMS, WFS, WCS • Metadata • OGC, ISO • Semantic interoperability – INSPIRE
  25. 25. Engagement • Citizens as both producers and consumers – enabled by standards, GPS, cartographic software – neogeography • OpenStreetMap and Haiti
  26. 26. http://www.directrelief.org/Flash/HaitiShipments/Index.html
  27. 27. So why the fuss? • Why cyber geographic information system? – why not cyber geriatric information system? • T Two points i t – represent impediments – call for fundamental research
  28. 28. Location as common key • The stack of layers
  29. 29. But in reality… • Spatial databases are organized as layers – horizontal integration not “vertical” – property z about all places t b t ll l – rather than all properties about location x • “tell me everything about location x” tell x – overlay must be invoked explicitly • graphical overlay or topological overlay – many mashups are merely graphical overlay • a visual spatial join
  30. 30. The spatial join • Using location as a common key to link tables • All location references are subject t l ti f bj t to uncertainty – measurement error – vagueness in feature identification – indeterminate limits • The probabilistic join
  31. 31. Multiple attribution p Names Shapes Sh D’aowaga —— ESRI Lake Tahoe ~~~ USGS Sierra Lake Types +Water Body - Lake Plate carre - Reservoir
  32. 32. The true spatial join is still elusive • Much better techniques needed – especially to deal with vague, vernacular references – in text, speech, human discourse generally – beyond formally de ed coo d a es beyo d o a y defined coordinates – well-defined metrics of confidence • We are a long way from realizing the fully g y g y interoperable vision
  33. 33. The functionality of cyberGIS • CyberGIS requires a formally defined functionality • Wh t is the appropriate l What i th i t level of granularity of l f l it f cyberGIS functions? • How many functions are there? – 542 in the ArcGIS 9.3.1 toolbox • How to navigate among them? – 18 top-level categories • vaguely defined, overlapping – “Analysis”, “Spatial Analyst”, “Spatial Statistics”, “Geostatistical Analyst”
  34. 34. Requirements • A standard set of functions – interoperable across all servers – d fi d granularity defined l it • an atomic level – in reality functionality is de e ea y u c o a y s determined in pa by ed part legacy • and non-interoperable – hidd f hidden from th user where appropriate the h i t
  35. 35. What is this really about? • It used to be difficult to do – senior undergraduate courses – th GIS professional the f i l • In a world of Google Earth what does everyone need to know? – is spatial really special? – do we SAPs think differently?
  36. 36. “1. Linguistic Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles. p 2. Logical-Mathematical Children with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments. 3. Bodily-Kinesthetic y These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking. 4. Spatial These children think in images and p g pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or y y jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Lego or daydreaming. 5. Musical Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners. y g 6. Interpersonal Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence. 7. Intrapersonal p These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self- motivated.” Howard Gardner http://www.professorlamp.com/ed/TAG/7_Intelligences.html
  37. 37. What is spatial thinking? “Three aspects of spatial ability: • Spatial knowledge – symmetry, orientation, scale, distance decay, etc. • Spatial ways of thinking and acting – using diagramming or graphing, recognizing patterns in data, change over space f tt i d t h from change over time, etc. • Spatial capabilities – ability to use tools and technologies such as spreadsheet, graphical, statistical, and GIS software to analyze spatial data” http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11019.html
  38. 38. Fundamental spatial concepts • Some acquired in early childhood – distance, direction • S Some acquired only i hi h education i d l in higher d ti – spatial dependence, spatial heterogeneity – not intuitive – can be taught – serve to distinguish the SAP
  39. 39. Karl Grossner www.teachspatial.org
  40. 40. 186 concepts • Overarching structures – alphabetical sort – part-whole relationships t h l l ti hi – synonyms – domain-specific meanings – mapping to GIS functions – level of conceptual complexity p p y – mapping to curriculum standards
  41. 41. Concluding comments • Much still to be done • Advancing technology creates a constant supply of i t l f interesting questions ti ti • Need for future vision – what will a geospatially enabled world l k lik i h t ill ti ll bl d ld look like in 2020? or 2015? – how will society cope?

×