> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:geowanking-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R E Sieber > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Geowanking] Idea for a Neogeographers meet Paleogeographers > panel at Where 2.0 > > Also, you'll notice that the above abstract is a bit hard on the > paleos and gracious to the neos. What I'd need is some wording that's > gracious to the paleos. Can you think of good things to say about > traditional cartographer and GIScience? (Obviously I can, but I'm > curious as to others' impressions.) I'm not sure why anyone would think that calling academic GIScience folks "paleogeographers" would foster meaningful discussion in the way that you describe. That term seems condescending to me - I guess I am a paleogeographer because I work at a university and I am a researcher in GIScience - this despite the fact that we build open source software (since 10 years ago, and in recent years our software leads are GeoTools folks), much of linked to computational methods for data mining and cluster detection. So the proprietary, non-computational, and closed characterizations do not apply. And our center is far from the only place where this kind of work is taking place in academia. What does GIScience and Cartography Research have to offer? Research advances in GIScience and Cartography provide the basis for all kinds of things that people are mashing up today. Mapping and spatial analysis methods didn't simply appear out of thin air to become mashable through an API. I think the "paleo" perspective on what GIScience research is all about has little evidence to support it. Maybe those assumptions apply instead to GIScience as it is *practiced* in much of the professional world. So clearly I have some strong opinions about this. :) I guess I just wonder if your stated goals are at all possible if you're going to devote attention to defining camps and weighting them down with sweeping generalizations. That's going to alienate good ideas and attract people who just want to gripe. I think this session would benefit from simply comparing different types of goals associated with GIScience research vs. those who are associated more closely with neogeography. It would be interesting to identify places where the more science-oriented goals of GIScience research might mesh well with faster-moving neogeography goals and vice versa. One thing that is almost certainly in common is that both communities need to find people to fund this stuff in one way or another. So are there good examples of projects that mix university research with neogeography partners? If not, what are the barriers to that happening and how could we change them? Cheers, -Anthony Anthony Robinson, PhD Research Associate John A. Dutton e-Education Institute / GeoVISTA Center Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University http://www.personal.psu.edu/acr181/
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
