Cartographic interpretation of the “meta” notion in the cultural heritage context

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2020-4-26-371-384

Посмотреть или загрузить статью (Eng)

Об авторах

Viktor S. Chabaniuk

Institute of Geography of NASU,
Volodymyrska str., 44, 01030, Kiev, Ukraine,
E-mail: chab3@i.ua

Kateryna A. Polyvach

Institute of Geography of NASU,
Volodymyrska str., 44, 01030, Kiev, Ukraine,
E-mail: kateryna.polyvach@gmail.com

Аннотация

The monograph [Aslanikashvili, 1974] does not define the term “metacartography”, although the notion itself is described in sufficient detail to be understood. A. Aslanikashvili’s metacartography has proven to be very useful in considering the relations between modern systematic cartographic phenomena, which are often relate to Web 2.0 cartography. The article offers a practical interpretation of the “meta” notion in such phenomena as National Atlases, National Spatial Data Infrastructures and OpenStreetMap. This is done using the Conceptual Frameworks (CoFr) method and the Atlas Extender (AtEx), which allow extending atlases in the classical sense to extended atlas systems. AtEx implements a CoFr method of relational cartography based on patterns (hereinafter RelCa), among which are relational patterns of “meta”. CoFr describe the structure of spatial information systems in an extended sense, and relational cartographies are defined as the coordinated art, science and technology of making and using relations in (extended) cartographic systems and between (extended) cartographic systems. Due to this we can consider relational spaces that have a lot in common with the specific spaces of A. Aslanikashvili.

To apply the RelCa methods, the understanding of “metacartography”, “map meta-model” and “map language” notions have been updated. For this purpose, Model-Based Engineering (MBE) has been used, an area of computer science that is evolving in our century. The analogies between BMI constructions, modern systematic cartographic phenomena and A. Aslanikashvili metacartography are shown. It has been proved abductively that in modern conditions the field of cartography research needs to be extended by relational spaces or to a system of spatial systems of a certain epistemological structure. Important in this structuring is the relation of “meta” that A. Aslanikashvili began to explore. The abduction proved the presence and necessity of using the “meta” relation when constructing cultural heritage maps. In particular, the interpretation of the “meta” relation for choropleth maps is proposed, modeling the saturation assessment of the country by the entities of the material cultural heritage. The results obtained will be included in the Atlas of Cultural Heritage of Ukraine.

Ключ. слова

relational cartography, metacartography, Conceptual Frameworks method, Atlas Extender, Atlas of Cultural Heritage

Список литературы

  1. Alexander C. The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press, 1979. 552 p.
  2. Aslanikashvili A.F. Metacartography. Main problems. Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1974. 126 p. (in Russian).
  3. Booch G., Jacobson I., Rumbaugh J. The unified modeling language user guide. Addison-Wesley, 1998. 512 p.
  4. Brackett M.H. Data resource quality. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2000. 384 p.
  5. Brambilla M., Cabot J., Wimmer M. Model-driven software engineering in practice. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2017. 2nd Ed. 209 p.
  6. Brodeur J., Coetzee S., Danko D., Garcia S., Hjelmager J. Geographic information metadata — an outlook from the international standardization perspective. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2019. V. 8 (6). No 280. P. 1–39.
  7. Bunge W. Theoretical geography: Transl. from English. Moscow: Progress, 1967. 279 p. (in Russian).
  8. Chabaniuk V. Relational сartography: Theory and practice. Kiev: Institute of Geography, 2018. 525 p. (in Ukrainian).
  9. Chabaniuk V., Dyshlyk O. Atlas basemaps in Web 2.0 epoch. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. XXIII ISPRS Congress, 12–19 July 2016, Prague, Czech Republic. 2016. V. XLI-B4. P. 611–618.
  10. Chabaniuk V., Rudenko L. Relational geospatial technologies: background theory, practical example and needs in education. Geospatial Technologies in Geography Education. Springer. P. 63–83.
  11. Connolly T.M., Begg C.E. Database systems: a practical approach to design, implementation and management. Pearson Education, 2015. 6th Ed. 1440 p.
  12. Connolly T.M., Begg C.E., Strachan A.D. Database systems: a practical approach to design, implementation and management. Addison-Wesley, 1995. 839 p.
  13. Cresswell T. Geographic thought: a critical introduction (Critical introductions to geography). Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. 298 p.
  14. Cultural heritage in atlas geoinformation system of sustainable development of Ukraine. Kiev: Institute of Geography, 2018. 172 p. (in Ukrainian).
  15. da Silva A.R. Model-driven engineering: A survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Computer Languages, Systems & Structures, 2015. V. 43. P. 139–155.
  16. Favre J.-M. Megamodelling and etymology. A story of words: from MED to MDE via MODEL in five millenniums. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05161, 427. 22 p.
  17. Hay D.C. Data model patterns: A metadata map. Morgan Kaufmann, 2006. 432 p.
  18. Information system concepts: an in-depth analysis. Amsterdam et al., North-Holland, 1989. 357 p.
  19. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010. Systems and software engineering — Vocabulary. 410 p.
  20. Karagiannis D., Kuhn H. Metamodelling platforms. LNCS 2455. Proceedings of the Third Int. Conf. EC-Web at Dexa. Springer, 2002. P. 182–195.
  21. Klir G.J. Architecture of systems poblem solving. Springer, 1985. 540 p.
  22. Liuty А.А. Language of map: essence, system, functions. Moscow: IG RAS, 2002. 2nd Ed. 327 p. (in Russian).
  23. Marco D. Building and managing the meta data repository. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. 416 p.
  24. National atlas of Ukraine. Scientific backgrounds of creation and their realization. Кiev: Academperiodics, 2007. 408 p. (in Ukrainian).
  25. Polyvach K.A. Cultural heritage and its influence on the development of regions of Ukraine. Кiev: Institute of Geography, 2012. 208 p. (in Ukrainian).
  26. Shneiderman B. Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d Space-Filling Approach. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2012. V. 11. Iss. 1. P. 92–99.
  27. Tannenbaum A. Metadata solutions. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2001. 528 p.
  28. van Gigch J.P. System design modeling and metamodeling. Springer, 1991. 453 p.

Для цитирования: Chabaniuk V.S., Polyvach K.A. Cartographic interpretation of the “meta” notion in the cultural heritage context. ИнтерКарто. ИнтерГИС. Геоинформационное обеспечение устойчивого развития территорий: Материалы Междунар. конф. M: Издательство Московского университета, 2020. Т. 26. Ч. 4. С. 371–384 DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2020-4-26-371-384

For citation: Chabaniuk V.S., Polyvach K.A. Cartographic interpretation of the “meta” notion in the cultural heritage context. InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 2020. V. 26. Part 4. P. 371–384. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2020-4-26-371-384