Google drowning in diplomatic waters?

It seems that the government of Taiwan is upset with Google over the fact that Google Earth lists Taiwan as a province of China. I am not going to enter the messy debate over whether Taiwan is or isn't a part of China, but this is a clear illustration of inflexible database technology forcing geeks into the role of diplomats (which is always a bad idea). Google Earth and other GIS-based systems are inflexible in that they force one world view to be presented at all times. The creators of these systems have to pick one naming convention or world ontology to describe geographic areas due to the way they store geographic data.

What if every user was allowed to make their own assertions about specific geographies? The likelihood is that most of us would agree on about 99.9% of the names used throughout the world, but for the 1% where there is disagreement users could literally see their own world view. This would require a database that allows for multiple (and potentially conflicted) ontologies that may all refer to the same geographic entity. Further, user interfaces would need to be developed that allow users to make these assertions and then remember them going forward. Potentially ever user's view of the the middle east (or Kashmir, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Ethiopa/Eritrea, etc. etc. -- the list is endless) could appear differently.

This type of anarchy of information might rub some information scientists the wrong way, but at least it is a start towards getting people to agree on the 99.9% of the world's geography where there is little contention. Further, if the information system is well designed, then we can use all of the diverse assertions about the organization of political boundaries, associations, what cities belong to what political entity, etc. (referred to as ontologies in database speak) to still refer to the same geophysical concepts. In this scenario, it doesn't matter whether you believe the city of Quetta is in Pashtunistan or Pakistan, we can all agree that it is a city that exists in a disputed region.

I would assert that having a dynamic map of the world that clearly shows where there are serious disputes about geographies would be a great educational tool. We are only going to resolve conflict once we understand it better. Sweeping it under the rug like Google has (and many others, too) in the name of monoculture "standards" is bad design and worse helps to fan the flames of conflict around the world.

The Information Commons project I am involved with is implementing a better solution to this problem by separating out the identity of a place from ontologies that describe it. You can read more about our approach at the preceding link. More info to come...