The actual, feasible and simultaneously "correct" models of digital NSDI of Ukraine are considered in the work. A model of the existed digital NSDI system of Ukraine is named “actual”. This model already differs from the model defined by the [1]. As the latter is unlikely to be implemented in the near future, the issue of the digital feasible NSDI model of Ukraine in the next five years, which would take into account the actual model, is especially acute. In addition to feasibility, such a model must also be "correct", what is proposed in the article. The correct is called a model, the truth of which can be established by inductive or deductive reasoning. To do this, the correct model must be formalized enough so that everyone can verify the authors’ reasoning independently. Understanding both actual and correct models of NSDI of Ukraine will help to properly organize and develop actual Spatial Infrastructure Activities (SpIA) in Ukraine, including the real[1] implementation of the [1]. Although the results of the article call into question its feasibility and substantiate an alternative viewpoint on the automation problem of NGDI/NSDI/SpIA. However, we are convinced that it is still possible to change the alternative viewpoint to a cooperative one, if by means of by-laws the models of NGDI (Law), NSDI (article) and, finally, SpIA are agreed upon To prove the "correctness" of the feasible NSDI model, the theory of Relational cartography and its two main methods are used: Conceptual Frameworks and Solution Frameworks. In addition, the correspondence between Relational cartography and Model-Based Engineering is used. Key words: NSDI; product model; process model; actual, feasible and «correct» model. [1] Real. 1. Which exists in reality, true. Is used with: reality, life, existence, conditions, circumstances, fact, danger, force, wages, income. 2. One that can be implemented, executed: a real plan, a real program, a real task, a real deadline. 3. Which is based on taking into account and assessing the real conditions of reality: a real approach, a real view, a real policy.- accessed 2021-feb-14, http://slovopedia.org.ua/32/53408/32016.html (Ukrainian).

No abstract

Від редакції У цій рубриці представлено роботу В. Чабанюка та О. Дишлика "Реляційна картографія: предмет дослідження", яка є наслідком досліджень авторів у галузі теоретичної картографії. На думку авторів, картографам час звернути увагу на такі сучасні «некласичні» картографічні явища, як гео-і/або карто-платформи епохи Веб 2.0 (OpenStreetMap), просторові інфраструктури (INSPIRE/ELF) та інші. Автори наголошують на необхідності нового виміру теоретичної картографії-Реляційної картографії, що визначається як узгоджені мистецтва, науки і технології виготовлення й використання відношень всередині картографічних систем і між картографічними системами. Англомовний варіант статті дозволить розширити аудиторію для дискусії.

No abstract

Cartographic interactivity is now most often understood as an addition to cartographic representations for end users of electronic maps. The article substantiates the need to extend this understanding. This extension will help in creation of the modern atlas systems, which are increasingly being developed as integrated or consisting of several systems. Along with end users, expert-cartographers (developers) and analysts also become users of atlas systems and their interactive maps. Users with relevant knowledge are combined into epistemologically ordered echelons – the higher the echelon, the more knowledge about interactivity the user should possess. Therefore, atlas interactive cartography should now be considered for many simultaneously operating systems and for many users. Examples of new operations of cartographic interactivity for new echelons of users are given: for expert-cartographers this is a dynamic change (i. e. during the operation of the system) of the cartographic method of modeling actuality, and for analysts, the model itself. A review of software solutions that are used to implement extended cartographic interactivity when creating a new generation of atlas systems has been completed. To prove the results, the methods of new relational cartography are used. In particular, the method of conceptual frameworks of atlas systems is used, which allows combining the methods of classical cartography and the methods of relational cartography into the system method of future system cartography. As examples of the paradigms of classical cartography, the communicative paradigm and growth perspective of R. Roth from the University of Wisconsin-Madison are chosen.