Crosscutting cartographies: ontological and linguistic modeling
Authors:   Institute of Geography NANU, CHABANIUK V. , DYSHLYK O. ,   Geomatics Solutions, LLC
Published: April 2024

Since the 50s of the last centuries, cartographic science has been operating with several theoretical constructions, which, from the viewpoint of the formal concept of theory, should be called “pre-theories”. This term is used to denote those of them that are “close” to theories, but are not. “Pre-theories” of cartography in the West are called “paradigms” of cartography, and in Eastern Europe until recently they were called “conceptions” of cartography. According to A. Berlyant, at the end of the last century, one of the three most famous conceptions of cartography in Eastern Europe was the language conception. The other two were communication and model-cognitive conceptions. In our century, the language conception does not develop and remained a pre-theory. Other conceptions and/or paradigms have not developed into a theory of cartography. Now, for such pre-theories, the unifying term “paradigm” is more often used, which we will also use. The lack of a theory of cartography is the first and main problem, one of the possible solutions of which is proposed in the work. The possibility of creating a theory of new, let’s say, systems cartography, now seems to us to be premature, unconstructive, although it is very necessary from the viewpoint of both theory and practice. More constructive is the possibility (and necessity) of a certain “systemic” evolution of theoretical cartography, which can be reduced to the primary creation of a paradigm of one or few “updated” cartographies, as close as possible to systems cartography. It follows from the general theory of systems that such an update should be carried out in two directions – “subject” and “relational”. In the subject direction, map subjecrs are studied, and in the relational direction – the relations between maps. An updated cartography/s will be defined if agreed upon and updated accordingly: 1) domain of inquiry, 2) body of knowledge of the domain of inquiry, and 3) methodology of inquiry. In this case, there is a high chance of obtaining an one or more renewed cartography paradigms by developing one or more existing cartography paradigms. The necessary updating of the relational direction can be achieved by renewing the so-called “crosscutting” paradigms of cartography. They are considered in this article from a systemic viewpoint. The specificity of the article is the consideration of the outlines of all three specified components from the viewpoint of renewing crosscutting cartographies. “Crosscutting” or “intersecting” are conceptions and/or paradigms of cartography that are in a certain sense “perpendicular” to classic “subject” cartographies, such as, for example, the communication paradigm. Examples of crosscutting cartographies are metacartographic (Bunge, Aslanikashvili) and language (Liuty, Pravda, Ramirez) conceptions/paradigms. Actualization of studies on crosscutting cartographies makes it possible to clarify all three components of the renewed cartography as a science, which are considered in this article in an arbitrary, albeit logical, order. First, Aslanikashvili’s “crosscutting” Metacartography makes it possible to clarify the representation of the domain of inquiry of renewed cartography in terms of the subject of inquiry. For this, it is possible and necessary to use the conceptons of ideal concrete space and ideal map of A. Aslanikashvili. His model representations have a lot in common with Klir’s general systems representations, which makes it possible to use the general systems theories of Klir and van Gigch to define the domain/subject of inquiry. Secondly, the “crosscutting” renewed Language paradigm based on Liuty’s Language of maps (hereinafter – Liuty’s Language paradigm) will help to solve the following important questions of the methodology of inquiry of renewed cartography: 1) what are ontological and linguistic modeling in cartography, 2) what are the relation between them, 3) what cartographic modeling should/can be used to study the surrounding reality. This is the second problem of the work, a possible solution of which will be offered later. It opens up a number of “constructive” studies in renewed cartography, as it intersects with the direction that is now intensively developed and used in computer science. This direction is called Model Based Engineering (MBE). Thirdly, the “crosscutting” renewed Language paradigm of Liuty contains knowledge that will be useful for the renewed cartography as well. This knowledge needs to be renewed and aligned with the domain of inquiry and methodology of inquiry of renewed cartography. This renewing is the third problem of the work, because currently the scientific cartographic community does not pay attention to the Language paradigm and Languages of maps. In our century, the development of the Language paradigm was carried out only in practice – through the creation and use of “cartographic” programming languages, which can be called domain-specific languages (DSL). Examples include MapBasic from the MapInfo Professional software technology and the Leaflet JavaScript library. This work was conceived as an attempt to clarify some theoretical issues of cartography, some of the issues of its practical usage and, in particular, the practical usage of Crosscutting cartographies and the Language paradigm in modeling of entities and/or phenomena of reality. Namely, to clarify such questions as: 1) crosscutting cartographies and their place in the renewed cartography, 2) what are ontological and linguistic modeling and what are the relations between these modelings, 3) the place of the Language of maps in the renewed cartography. Most likely, the proposed renewings will create a paradigm of renewed cartography, one of the possible names of which could be “crosscutting” cartography. Such a theoretical construction will be a significant approximation to systems cartography. After all, the authors believe that there is no alternative to the emergence of systems cartography as a theory of cartography. However, it is important to have not just another paradigm of cartography, but to have a constructive paradigm. One that can be developed into a theory of cartography that many cartographers have written about.