Place cookies and setting spiders in dream cartography

Abstract

This article contributes to understanding the difference between objective space and subjective place. New data models and visual methods, which make possible the comparison between dream settings, are necessary to an exploratory analysis of dreams. The subjective perception of settings is decomposed by studying dream reports, by applying a survey, and by considering related scientific literature. This leads to the construction of two data models, which are applied in dream cartography. The place cookie model features the dreamer's familiarity with the setting, being visualized in the form of concentric circles. The setting spider model is based on 26 variables, extensively characterizing the setting. These are grouped into eight factors, and visualized in a compact radar chart with eight “legs.” As a superordinate system of the setting spider, the event spider is developed, describing the whole dream scene. The proposed models and visualization methods can be transferred for real‐life events (settings).

Operationalizing places in GIScience: A review

“…The former is found in the paper of Enescu et al. (2020), in which the authors developed data models for analyzing and visualizing the spatial patterns of dreams. According to them, dream settings are examples of platial knowledge and place‐making, carrying both physical and social elements of a person's surroundings.…”

“…The operationalization of the constructs was heavily dependent on the research objectives of the papers, as some studies only proposed the design of a model based on a specific theoretical background while others additionally wished to apply their framework to specific tasks. Such tasks included place‐based queries (Papadakis et al., 2020), place‐based GIS operations (Gao et al., 2013), information retrieval based on equivalent or nearby places (Jones et al., 2001; Purves et al., 2019), representation of geohistorical information (Plewe, 2019), footprint approximations to infer the hierarchy of place name regions (Vögele et al., 2003), place‐based hypothesis testing (Mennis & Mason, 2016), exploratory data analysis (Cho & Yuan, 2019), data classification (Quesnot & Roche, 2015), and data representation (Iosifescu Enescu, Bär, Beilstein, & Hurni, 2020). Most of the studies followed the steps of first conceptually framing the problem, then using different methods of knowledge representation for their formalization, and finally applying their representations in a real case study or a hypothetical example.…”

On the representation of places

“…Among such examples where the place does not exist are places idealized or even constructed through media (Avraham, 2000;Avraham & Ketter, 2008;Gold & Ward, 1994;Morgan et al, 2011) and imaginary places, such as utopian and imagined cities (Harvey, 2000, pp. 168ff;Erskine, 1960), places in dreams (Iosifescu Enescu & Hurni, 2018;Iosifescu Enescu et al, 2020), and places in virtual reality (Relph, 2007).…”

Putting Geographical Information Science in Place – Towards Theories of Platial Information and Platial Information Systems

“…For instance, Vasardani and Winter (2016) and Vasardani et al (2016) have explored how previous works of Christopher Alexander can be utilized to understand which qualities of a place are specific to it. Besides the description of existing places, Iosifescu Enescu and Hurni (2018) and Iosifescu Enescu et al (2020) have focussed on the qualities places can have in dreams.…”

“…Two geometries described by different sets of coordinates are usually interpreted as different geometries. 13 In addition, it can even be argued that there are places without any real geometrical extent, for example, in the context of books, film, computer games, or dreams (Iosifescu Enescu and Hurni, 2018; Iosifescu Enescu et al, 2020; Tateosian et al, 2020) as well as related to mediated and virtual geographies.…”