Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What a Geographical Entity Could Be

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Philosophy of GIS

Part of the book series: Springer Geography ((SPRINGERGEOGR))

Abstract

The main task of this article is providing a sketch of possible approaches, response attempts, conundrums and issues arising from the question: ‘What is a geographical entity?’. It is shown how trying to answer this question is made particularly difficult by a multiplicity of aspects that might be summarized as follows: (1) There exist multiple conceptualizations of the geographical world . (2) Different languages and cultures may slice such a world in different ways. (3) The geographical world has changed and will change over time. (4) Also geography (as a discipline) has changed and will change over time, modifying its perspective, tools, domains of investigation and aims. Consequently, what had, has been, will be considered as non-geographic could be considered as geographic and vice versa. (5) There were, are and will be different kinds of geographies as well as different geographical branches, each of them had, have and might have different tools, aims, points of view and vocabularies. (6) The introduction of new scholarly fields and new technologies, the birth of intellectual movements or paradigm shifts and developments on other disciplinary contexts can/will influence geography as a discipline.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Therefore, my theoretical point of view may be seen as closed to ontological perspectivalism (Bateman and Farrar 2004; Grenon and Smith 2007; Elford 2012).

  2. 2.

    In theory, such a list should also be open to the inclusion of new empirical and theoretical evidences, which might modify and/or extend it.

  3. 3.

    See for instance: Casati et al. (1998), Smith and Mark (2001) and the link https://definedterm.com/geographic_entity. In the geographical debate, other examples of laundry-lists (that integrate some attempts of definition of ‘geographical entity’) can be found in some of the more general classes of geo-ontologies. For a list (not a laundry-list) of the main geo-ontologies see Tambassi (2017a).

  4. 4.

    In which case, we should, perhaps, also ask whether it is more appropriate to talk about cartographic entities rather than geographical entities.

  5. 5.

    About the non-correspondence between geography and cartography, and more in general, on the critique of ‘cartographic reason’, see: Farinelli (2003, 2009).

  6. 6.

    Among the most significant works that investigate the notion of ‘classical geography’ in a more geographical sense and analyze its relations with the concepts of spatial location and representation in a totally different perspective than what is being discussed here, see: Lukermann (1961), Geus and Thiering (2014).

  7. 7.

    Cfr. Smith (1995), Smith and Varzi (1997), Casati et al. (1998), Smith and Mark (1998), Smith and Varzi (2000), Galton (2003).

  8. 8.

    Obviously, the study of the (mutual) relation between geographical boundaries and cultural elements is not unique to ontological analysis, but it is, for example, one of the main assumptions of border studies—according to which boundaries are generally understood as social constructs rather than being naturally given entities. In this respect, see for example: Kolossov (2005), Newman (2006), Agnew (2008), Newman (2010), Kolossov and Scott (2013), Paasi (2013a, b), Yachin (2015).

  9. 9.

    A similar example is provided by the recognition, among others, of Kosovo and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, which is supported only by some (or none) of the members of the United Nations. In other words, some members of the UN might consider Kosovo and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic as proper nations, while other members do not. Consequently, the categorization of these entities changes according to the member of UN that classifies them. Of course, the concept of recognition is neither a prerogative of the United Nations nor of the notion of nation. On the contrary, it may be applied to, in principle, other geographical notions and/or institutions. See, for example, Italy with Lunezia (section “On Nonexistent and Abstract Geographical Entities”).

  10. 10.

    See Mandelbrot (1967), Sarjakoski (1996), McGee (1997), Bennett (2001), Varzi (2001).

  11. 11.

    It is the relation ‘is a part of’ that can also include some temporal parameters which help to specify the criteria of identity for the entities and their constitutive parts. See Simons (1987), Smith and Mark (1998), Casati and Varzi (1999), Mark et al. (1999).

  12. 12.

    Examples of topological relations are connection, overlapping, containment, distance, separation, discontinuity and so on. See Smith (1994, 1995, 1996), Varzi (2007).

  13. 13.

    In general, spatial relations might be conceived as relations between objects and the regions of space they occupy or in which they are located. See Casati et al. (1998).

  14. 14.

    For example, the mereotopology that is the connection between mereology and topology (Smith 1995; Breysse and De Glas 2007), or again the relation between the notions of topology and border (Casati et al. 1998; Smith and Varzi 2000; Varzi 2007).

  15. 15.

    See for example Mark and Csillag (1989), Smith (1995), Burrough and Frank (1996), Zimmerman (1996), Smith and Varzi (1997, 2000), Casati et al. (1998), Smith and Mark (1998), Casati and Varzi (1999), Varzi (2007, 2016), Russell (2008).

References

  • Agnew J (2008) Borders on the mind: re-framing border thinking. Ethics Glob Polit 1(4):175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman J, Farrar S (2004) Towards a generic foundation for spatial ontology. In: Varzi AC, Vieu L (eds) Formal ontology in information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 237–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett B (2001) What is a forest? On the vagueness of certain geographic concept. Topoi 20(2):189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchetti S (2008) Geografia storica del mondo antico. Monduzzi, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishr Y (2007) Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability: seven years on. In: Fischer P (ed) Classics from IJGIS. Twenty years of the international journal of geographical information science and systems. CRC Press, Boca-Raton-London-New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner T, Smith B (2008) A theory of granular partitions. In: Munn K, Smith B (eds) Applied ontology. An introduction. Ontos-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnett A (2008) What is geography?. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Breysse O, De Glas M (2007) A new approach to the concepts of boundary and contact: toward an alternative to mereotopology. Fundam Inform 78:217–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) (1996) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Casati R, Smith B, Varzi AC (1998) Ontological tools for geographic representation. In: Guarino N (ed) Formal ontology in information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 77–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Casati R, Varzi AC (1999) Parts and places. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Casti E (2015) Reflexive cartography. A new perspective on mapping. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford, Waltham (MA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Crampton JW (2010) Mapping. A critical introduction to cartography and GIS. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis H (1998) Space, time, geography. Geogr Inf Syst 1:29–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis H, Gale N (1986) Space and spaces. Geogr Ann 68(B):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egenhofer M, Herring J (1991) High-level spatial data structures for GIS. In: Maguire D, Goodchild M, Rhind D (eds) Geographical information systems, vol 1. Principles. Longman, London, pp 147–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Egenhofer M, Mark DM (1995) Naive geography. In: Frank AU, Kuhn W (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS. In: Proceedings of the second international conference. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Elden S (2009) Philosophy and human geography. In: Kitchen R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopaedia of human geography. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 145–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elford W (2012) A multi-ontology view of ergonomics: applying the cynefin framework to improve theory and practice. Work 41(1):812–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein B (2017) What are social groups? Their metaphysics and how to classify them. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1387-y

  • Farinelli F (2003) Geografia. Un’introduzione ai modelli del mondo. Einaudi, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Farinelli F (2009) La crisi della ragione cartografica. Einaudi, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank A, Mark DM (1991) Language issues for GIS. In Maguire DJ, Goodchild MF, Rhind DW (eds) Geographical information systems. Principles and applications, vol 1. Longman, London, pp 147–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Galton A (2003) On the ontological status of geographical boundaries. In: Duckham M, Goodchild MG, Worboys MF (eds) Foundation of geographic information science. Taylor & Francis, London, New York, pp 151–171

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geus K, Thiering M (2014) Common sense geography and mental modelling: setting the stage. In: Geus K, Thiering M (eds) Features of common sense geography. Implicit knowledge structures in ancient geographical texts. LIT, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez B, Jones JP III (eds) (2010) Research methods in geography: a critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenon P, Smith B (2007) Persistence and ontological pluralism. In: Kanzian C (ed) Persistence. Springer, New York, pp 33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Günzel S (2001) Geophilosophie. Nietzsches philosophische Geographie. Akademie, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwiazdzinski L, Chausson N (eds) (2015) Urban nights. J Urban Res 11 (Special issue). https://journals.openedition.org/articulo/2595

  • Inkpen R, Wilson G (2013) Science, philosophy and physical geography. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones S (1963) Weights and measures: an informal guide. Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennelly A (1928) Vestiges of pre-metric weights and measures persisting in metric-system Europe, 1926–1927. The Macmillan Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolossov V (2005) Border studies: changing perspectives and theoretical approaches. Geopolitics 10(4):606–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolossov V, Scott J (2013) Selected conceptual issues in border studies. Belgeo 1. http://belgeo.revues.org/10532

  • Kula W (1983) Les Mesures et Les Hommes. Paris: Maison des Sciences de L’Homme [Translated from Polish by J Ritt; Polish edition 1970.]

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurini R (2017) Geographic knowledge infrastructure: applications to territorial intelligence and smart cities. ISTE-Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe EJ (1989) Kinds of being: a study of individuation, identity and the logic of sortal terms. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe EJ (2006) The four-category ontology: a metaphysical foundation for natural science. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckermann F (1961) The concept of location in classical geography. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 51(2):194–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot B (1967) How long is the coast of Britain? statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156:636–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark DM, Csillag F (1989) The nature of boundaries on ‘area-class’ maps. Cartographica 26:65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark DM, Smith B, Tversky B (1999, August 25–29) Ontology and geographic objects: an empirical study of cognitive categorization. In Freksa C, Mark DM (eds) Proceedings of spatial information theory. Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science. International conference COSIT’99 Stade, Germany. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 283–298

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee V (1997) Kilimanjaro. Can J Philos 23:141–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton N (2015) An atlas of countries that don’t exist. A compendium of fifty unrecognized and largely unnoticed states. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman D (2006) The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our ‘borderless’ world. Prog Hum Geogr 30(2):143–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman D (2010) Territory, compartments and borders: avoiding the trap of the territorial trap. Geopolitics 15:773–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes TS, Price PL (eds) (2008) The cultural geographer reader. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Orilia F, Swoyer C (2017) Properties. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/properties/

  • Paasi A (2013a) Borders and border crossings. In: Johnson N, Schein R, Winders J (eds) A new companion to cultural geography. Wiley-Blackwell, London, pp 478–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasi A (2013b) Borders. In: Dodds K, Kuus M, Sharp J (eds) The Ashgate research companion to critical geopolitics. Ashgate, London, pp 213–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattinson WD (1963) The four traditions of geography. J Geogr 63(5):211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch E (1973) On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In: Moore TE (ed) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. Academic Press, New York, pp 111–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch E (1978) Principles of categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd BB (eds) Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 28–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell JT (2008) The structure of gunk: adventures in the ontology of space. Oxf Stud Metaphys 4:248–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala M (2009) Geography. In: Sala M (ed) Geography. Encyclopedia of life support systems. EOLSS Publisher, Oxford, pp 1–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarjakoski T (1996) How many lakes, islands and rivers are there in Finland? A case study of fuzziness in the extent and identity of geographic objects. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with—indeterminate—boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 299–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons P (1987) Parts: an essay in ontology. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B (1994) Fiat objects. In: Guarino N, Pribbenow S, Vieu L (eds) Parts and wholes: conceptual part-whole relations and formal mereology. In: Proceedings of the ECAI94 workshop. Amsterdam, ECCAI, pp 15–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B (1995, September 21–23) On drawing lines on a map. In: Frank A, Kuhn W (eds) Spatial information theory—a theoretical basis for GIS. In: Proceedings, international conference Cosit’95, Semmering, Austria. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 988. Springer, Berlin, pp 475–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B (1996). Mereotopology: a theory of parts and boundaries. Data Knowl Eng 20:287–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Klagges B (2008) Bioinformatics and philosophy. In: Munn K, Smith B (eds) Applied ontology. An introduction. Ontos-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Mark DM (1998) Ontology and geographic kinds. In Poiker TK, Chrisman N (eds) Proceedings of the eighth international symposium on spatial data handling (Burnaby, British Columbia, International Geographical Union), pp. 308–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Mark DM (2001) Geographical categories: an ontological investigation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(7):591–612. http://idwebhost-202-147.ethz.ch/Courses/geog231/SmithMark_GeographicalCategories_ IJGIS2001@2005-10-19T07%3B30%3B52.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Varzi AC (1997) Fiat and bona fide boundaries: towards an ontology of spatially extended objects. In: Hirtle SC, Frank AU (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1329. Springer, Berlin, pp 103–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Varzi AC (2000) Fiat and bona fide boundaries. Res 60(2):401–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambassi T (2017a) The philosophy of geo-ontologies. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambassi T (2017b) Sulla nozione di entità geografica: mappando il dibattito geo-ontologico. Geostorie 2–3(2017):93–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambassi T (2018) From geographical lines to cultural boundaries. Mapping the ontological debate. Riv di Estet 67:150–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanca M (2012) Geografia e filosofia. Franco Angeli, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Varzi AC (2001) Vagueness in geography. Philos Geogr 4(1):49–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varzi AC (2007) Spatial reasoning and ontology: parts, wholes and location. In: Aiello M, Pratt-Hartmann I, van Benthem J (eds) Handbook of spatial logics. Springer, Berlin, pp 945–1038

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Varzi AC (2015) Boundary. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/boundary/

  • Varzi AC (2016) On drawing lines across the board. In: Zaibert L (ed) The theory and practice of ontology. Palgrave Macmillian, London, pp 45–78

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Warf B, Arias S (eds) (2009) The spatial turn interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge, London, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerhoff J (2005) Ontological categories. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Yachin SE (2015) Boundary as an ontological and anthropological category. In: Sevastianov SV, Laine JP, Kireev AA (eds) Introduction to border studies. Dalnauka, Vladivostok, pp 62–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman DW (1996) Could extended objects be made out of simple parts? Res 56:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubin D (1989) Untitled. In: Mark D, Frank A, Egenhofer M, Freundschuh S, McGranaghan M, White RM (eds) Languages of spatial relations: initiative two specialist meeting report. Technical paper 89-2, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA, pp 13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupko R (1968) A dictionary of english weights and measures. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupko R (1977) British weights and measures: a history from antiquity to the seventeenth century. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupko R (1978) French weights and measures before the revolution: a dictionary of provincial and local units. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of this article draw on previous materials. In particular, Sections “Laundry-Lists”–“Drawing the Contour” and “Boundaries” have some overlaps with Tambassi (2017b); Section “Attempts of Definition” has some overlaps with Tambassi (2017a); Section “Cultural (Geographical) Entities” has some overlaps with Tambassi (2018). Thanks are due to Sorin Cheval, Matthew R. X. Dentith, Mihnea Dobre, Maurizio Lana, Giulia Lasagni, Cristina Meini, Iulia Nitescu and Achille Varzi for providing comments and feedback, and for their invaluable support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities, University of Eastern Piedmont, Vercelli, Italy

    Timothy Tambassi

  2. ICUB, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Timothy Tambassi

Authors
  1. Timothy Tambassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Tambassi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Piedmont, Vercelli, Italy

    Timothy Tambassi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tambassi, T. (2019). What a Geographical Entity Could Be. In: Tambassi, T. (eds) The Philosophy of GIS. Springer Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16829-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation