Base maps aren't authoritative. They are a means for sharing consensus so
we can achieve more in community than we can alone, but a base map can be
verified against the terrain before a symbology is applied. The symbols are
the ontology.
If a map is incompatible with another map, that can be noted. It can't
always be resolved unless that commonly mapped is consulted. If there is no
commonality, there is no conflict.
len
From: Steve Newcomb [mailto:]
John Sowa's "Lattice of Theories" notion is interesting. It
recognizes that it's useful to express intersections between
different universes of discourse governed by incompatible
ontologies. The Topic Maps Reference Model is interesting,
too. It establishes a standard rhetoric for expressing such
wormholes. In both cases, there's no requirement for a
"base map". I think these kinds of ideas show the way
forward, because they sidestep any requirement that
everybody agrees about anything before information from
different perspectives can be integrated, or before
information expressed in terms of a given perspective can
become useful to people who don't share it.
