1. Participatory Indigenous Spatial Ontology R. E. Sieber C. C. Wellen McGill University

2. GIS and Indigenous Peoples GIS used by indigenous communities throughout the world (Poole, 1995) Main Goals: –Land rights (Poole 1995, Cizek 2004) –Preserve knowledge of elders, hunters (Tobias 2000, Laituri 2002) Criticisms: –Indigenous knowledge fit into machine, not the other way around (Rundstrom,1995; Nieminen, 1998)

3. Cree village Cree village 1,200 people Traditional land tenure system Traditional land tenure system 25% live off the land Discovery Channel Canada http://www.exn.ca/NationalParks/ accessed March 02, 2006/

5. Context Main research question: can a blend of participatory GIS and ontology address Rundstrom’s critique? Cree present an ideal context to investigate this: –They have money and access to information –They have infrastructure to support GIS already –They are implementing GIS of Cree oral history

6. Outline Introduce ontology in GIScience Introduce Participatory GIS Focused Research Questions Methodology Initial Results Future Plans

7. What are Ontologies? Philosophy: Study of being (Dale, 2002) Information Science: Explicit specification of a conceptualization (Gruber, 1993) GIScience: both! (Agarwal, 2005)

8. A Simple Ontology of Streams Adapted from H. Pundt, Y. Bishr / Computers & Geosciences 28 (2002) 95–102

9. From cognitive to computational Cognitive work highlights cultural differences in ontologies (Mark and Turk 2003) Computational side focuses on Semantic Web type applications (Egenhofer 2002) Work is needed that bridges the gap

10. Hydrographic Features Across Ontologies Mark and Turk (2003)

11. PGIS What is it? What benefits of using PGIS? –Traditional ecological knowledge (instead of just expert knowledge) What drawbacks does it highlight? –Top down –Actors’ interests. For research, graduation, tenure, and promotion. Because it’s ‘interesting.’ Because they can watch us and because it can improve individuals’ expertise (knowledge of GIS) and status in the community (culturally protected area versus mining; who gets hired once the protected area is established) and reinforce existing inequality and power structures (or undermine one element in the power structure) (Kyem 200x). Therefore, our project can have negative impacts.

12. Literature Review Prelim Ontological Schema Data Collection GIS User Needs Assessment Ontology Formalization User Interviews – Ontology Development Team meetings for System Design Meta Data Collection Ontology Verification Iterative methodology for a participatory Ontology Remote user interface design System Specification Content Analysis Verify Ontology Verify System Deployment GIS Application Development

13. Focused research questions What hydrographic feature categories do the Cree have? How can these features be represented in a GIS? How much must GIS technology be modified or customized to accommodate Cree hydrographic feature categories? How do we incorporate stories into a GIS?

14. Stuff to put What hydrographic feature categories do the Cree have? How can these features be represented in a GIS? –Components include geometric, attributional, relational. How much must GIS technology be modified or customized to accommodate Cree hydrographic feature categories? –How much cartography? GIS? Incorporating a CMS. –Geometry. Points are problematic but are lines and areas good enough? Places are named on the basis of how they look so it’s a finer grain of understanding. –A better semantic structure of explicit relationships is needed than in GIS or RDF (e.g., upuuchuun is where Poplar meets the James Bay. Perhaps a network model better than a geometric one) –Topology. Networks need adjacent features. How do we incorporate stories into an ontology? CMS? GIS? Interface? –Conceptually, a 3D or multi-layered ontology (need example). This would essentially give each token its own schema. –Computationally, make the story the entry point. Recycle stuff from AAG. –Specify a database schema for how stories relate to names, names to features. Should this come first? This would be a simple ontology of how stories relate to places (are these features?). The problem is, this is not a very participatory method of doing so, nor would it be complete, as we plan to implement a folksonomy thing. I did talk to people about placenames and stories a little though.

15. Methods: Ontology elicitation Adapted two-stage UK Ordinance Survey methodology (Mizen et al 2005) – conceptual ontology and logical ontology. Conceptual Ontology: 1. Create a list of “essential” terms of hydrography from Cree School Board dictionary 2. Worked on establishing trust 3. Created GIS (for town work) and took paper maps (for canoeing) 4. Participant observation: -Canoe Trip -Subsistence activities (i.e. chopped wood, checked fishnets, cooked bannock) 5. Semi-Structured Interviews with hunters and elders involving GIS, list. Asked what words they use to describe landscape that don’t translate into English. 6. Double-checked spelling, meaning with Cree language expert. 7. Found Cree literature on lake formations. Result: knowledge glossary in plain text and semantic triples

16. Picture of the list

20. Siipii – river Shiipaashtikw – side channel Anatwaayach – Between rapids Shiipiish – creek, stream Pimistaakan – well used water travel route Paaushtikuu – rapids Kapataakan – portage shikaapishii minishtikuchuun Siipii - Class Utamaa – Beaver or otter crossing Mischaakw – Muskeg, swamp ConnectedTo PartOf ContainedBy Avoids Aamaataamapiich – empties out SynonymOf aamaataashtikwaayaach Mischaakuhtin – The river goes through a muskeg Pitu-Piashich – Pool below rapids kipaanaanischii – Campsite Piishipuyaakin – Fish weir

21. ConnectedTo PartOf LittleBrotherOf Avoids AlsoNamed InstanceOf PaakumshumwaashtikwSiipii Paakumshumwaastikw PimistaakanPimistaakan Paakumshumwaashtikw - Instance naatwaahkupaash aasaashkaachuuhch Paaushtikuu naatwaahkupaash aawichuuhch kipaanaanischii naatwaahkupaash aawichuuhch Paaushtikuu anatwaayach naatwaahkupaash aawichuuhch naatwaahkupaau anatwaayach niishushtikwaayaauaamaataashtikwaayaach Kapataakan Portage6 Portage5Kapataakan aatikwaatuwaayaach

22. Paakumshumwaashtikw - Instance shiipiish Anatwaayach Paaushtikuu Kapataakan – portage kipaanaanischii – Campsite

23. GIS Features Search Engine Place Pages Cree Ontology Instance Semantics Non-Spatial Content Other Content

24. Stories - folksonomies Oral history already recorded Refers to named places – can be incorporated into the GIS Other, more participatory methods of data indexing are required – folksonomies.

25. Our Results (in terms of GISoc and Ontology) Ontology is homogenous: assumes that terminology is standardized across a population –Forced communities in Wemindji—e.g., slightly different ways different families referred to a river confluence. Whose words are privileged? (other words become a synonym of the privileged word) –Differences between coastal and inland peoples (different words for features existing in their spheres of influence). Are we creating a domain where one didn’t not previous exist? Is hydrography a domain or a part of another domain (e.g., fire succession, beaver habitats) Are we creating a superclass where it didn’t exist? There is no Cree word for waterway or watercourse that came up. Prevalence of the class versus the instance in Cree culture (and multiple inheritances). The bay versus bays. Are we privileging categories over instances (e.g., placenames) and introducing English concepts into the language? PGIS assisted in conceptualization of ontology because ontology is a really abstract Changing power relations and personal interests (actual examples or anticipations) Did transformation, which can be viewed as bad. However, some transformation is viewed as good (e.g., oral to written (Laituri 2002; Visitor 2006). Everyone is learning English The issue of adjectives, nouns and verbs. The issue of mereology and topology (the only topology is geographic).

26. Our Results in terms of PGIS Endogenously created? (The Band Office did say they wanted GIS. And CTA are using Google Earth to place cabins. One reason they’re doing this is because they don’t want to give it to the band office.) Involving whom and in what capacity? Computationally it’s difficult to implement with Cree partners. So is it really bottom-up (see ladders of participation) and at what stage is it participatory? And how participatory do they want it?

27. Put ladder of participation here