1 / 21

Presentation

Presentation. A geo-ontology to support the semantic integration of geoinformation from the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Authors : Paulo J. A. Gimenez, Mastering Asterio Kiyoshi Tanaka, DSc Fernanda Baião, DSc. Contextualization.

yukio
Download Presentation

Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation A geo-ontology to support the semantic integration of geoinformation from the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Authors: Paulo J. A. Gimenez, Mastering Asterio Kiyoshi Tanaka, DSc Fernanda Baião, DSc

  2. Contextualization • Increasingly demand for the availability of integrated geoinformation: • The profusion of geoinformation. • The diversity of providers. • Over 30 years of evolution and growth of the geospatial content. • The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (INDE) : • To provide an effective and efficient access and availability of spatial data. • Governments and public entities engaged. • Web 2.0 technologies: • Mature and available. • The necessity for formalization, representation and integration of the geoinformation at the semantic level: still open !!! [Diaz ET AL 2012]

  3. The Challenge of Geo-Semantic • Interoperability (by SDI dimension) andIntegration (by Data dimension). • Main Levels of Interoperability • Syntactic: how geographic objects will move amonginstitutions and these to society? • Approaches from ISO, OGC and OASIS patterns and directives. • Semantic: the choice of an ontology or use of semantic resources to describe geographic objects and their interrelationships. • Main Geospatial heterogeneity issues • Geospatiality: features and geometries of features; geographic and non-geographic relationships; systems and coordinate; scales conflicts; • Geo-semantics: discernment of a feature; spatial reasoning and representation dissonance.

  4. Goal of this proposal • Present an approach to the creation of a geo-ontology for representinggeographic objects within the context of NSDI (INDE) from the associated standards enabling the discoveryand integration of geoinformation.

  5. The Brazilian Context: “INDE” • The NSDI (INDE) • Arrange of SDI in different levels and providers. • Cartographic and basic geoinformation structured by ET-EDGV standard. • Follows e-PING architecture, references the OGC standards and adds owned standards: • MGB Profile (Brazilian Geographic Metadata Profile), based on ISO 19115:2003. • ET-EDGV (Technical Specification for Geographic Vector Data Structure). [CONCAR 2010]

  6. Geo-ontology basic concepts • Geo-ontology = {C, R, A, X, I}, where: • C (concepts) represents concept set of geographic object; • R (relations) is a relation set and it mainly describes relation set among concepts; • A (attribute) shows attribute’s set of geographic objects; • X (axioms) is a lot of axioms and it is a constraint rules among the concepts, relation and attribute; • I (instances) is a set of definition about instances. [Wang, Li and Song 2008]

  7. Methodological approach used • Combining existing methodologies from the literature: • The Simple Knowledge-Engineering Methodology [Noy and McGuinness 2001]. • Simplicity and efficiency. • Uses a set of competency questions (CQ) to determine the scope of the ontology. • The approach of Wang ET AL [Wang, Li and Song 2008] • Uses the "Concept lattice“: • Sets of objects and attributes from geographic concepts that represent the main aspects of the geospatial domain: is-a, kind-of, part-whole, dependency, instantiation and member relationships, as well as the relationship between attributes and concepts. • The work from Bishr [Bishr 2008] • Specifically addresses the geographical domain. • Establishes the elements that must be observed during the construction of the geo-ontology concepts.

  8. Methodological approach used • Following the steps and directives:

  9. The geo-ontology of INDE • Reuse and reference to known models of the geographical

  10. Ontology for Geographical Names • The Geographic name or toponym standard allows the identification of a Geographic Feature or Accident. • The toponymic phrase consists of two parts: • Generic term: the element on the geographical entity that receives the name. • Specific term: the element that distinguishes the identity of the geographic element. • [IBGE 2010, Lima 2011 apud Dick 1990] • The proposed ontology brings: • Correlation between term and toponyms. • Lists of generic terms (as proposed in [IBGE 2010]). • Support for names denoting variation in gender (male x female) and number (plural x singular). • Alternative toponymic phrases for a particular geographical area. • Support for geographical names composed of multiple toponymic phrases.

  11. Ontology for Geographical Names

  12. Ontology for Brazilian Geographic Metadata Profile • Ontologies for geographic metadata add semantic meaning and relationship to describe the underlying data.[Di and Zhao 2008] • The proposed ontology describes: • The basic characteristics for the representation of concepts defined in the MGB Profile and related to the “ISO 19115” ontology. • Sections and entities: as ontology classes. • Information and elements: as properties of classes or enumerated lists. • Same information elements shared among several sections with distinct terminology: as synonym relationships. • Cardinality restrictions mapped according to:

  13. Ontology for Brazilian Geographic Metadata Profile 14

  14. Ontology for Brazilian Geographic Domain • Based on the characteristics of geographic objects, spatial relationships and spatial primitives described in ET-EDGV. • The guidelines for the construction of each element and concept defined in ET-ADGV. • The proposal ontology describes: • Classes and Relationship evaluated at the semantic level: as concepts based on class definitions and subtypes described. • Hierarchical classification of concepts: as the categories of ET-EDGV and classifications of geo-concepts proposed by Wang[Wang, Li and Song 2008]. • The conceptual connection with the MGB Profile ontology. • Cardinality restrictions and Conditionality relations mapped according to:

  15. Ontology for Brazilian Geographic Domain *Partial sub-ontology 16

  16. The Competency Questions validation • CQ1: Which conditions or characteristics are required by a Geographic name so that it addresses (identifies) a Geographic Feature? • CQ2: Which conditions or characteristics are required by a Geographic Metadata so that it can be associated to a Geographic Name when identifying Geographic Feature? • CQ3: How are the needs for cartographic generalization of geographic features be identified? • CQ4: How can we identify the same object being represented as distinct cartographic features using different scales?

  17. Application of geo-ontology proposed • The proposed geo-ontology must be considered to: • Integration of the associated metadata. • Correlation with the geographical names. • The alignment with the ontology that describes the INDE geo-services. • The example scenario considers: • Integrated geoinformation is obtained from the basic geoinformation available in INDE. • Implementation of geo-processing to compose the integrated geo-information with its resulting metadata.

  18. Related Works • Some studies have been made to define and specify the possible structuring of geo-ontologies sets to represent geographic space: [Bishr 2008],[Kun, Wang and Shuang-Yun 2005]and especially • Di and Zhao [Di and Zhao 2008] defines several levels of abstraction for geo-ontologies • Wang's approach [Wang, Li and Song 2008] uses the "Concept lattice" 19

  19. Final Considerations • The main contribution of this proposal: • The proposed geo-ontology • The combination of concepts from the geographic names, metadata and geographic entities, providing support for analysis, applications and multifaceted uses. • Secondary effects: • Intention to (re)open the discussion and the application prospect to maximize the use of basic geoinformation available in INDE. • This work is essential part of study about semantic integration of several heterogeneous sources in the Brazilian context. • Much has to be done yet, to achieve a geo-ontology that can be accepted as the basis for this main study. 20

  20. Final Considerations • Some future work in order to mature the geo-ontology proposed: • Extension to • cover the needs of Systematic Cadastral Mapping as soon as the ET-EDGV specifies them; • represent metadata of geo-services that are not yet covered by the MGB Profile and adaptation of coded values lists to reflect the national context; • geo-field in alignment to ET-PCDG under elaboration; • Creation of geographic quality control ontology for validation and verification of geospatial data quality for alignment with the future ET-CQPCDG specification; • Expansion of • Brazilian Geographic Domain Ontology to match ET-EDGV specification in a complete way, considering all rules and orientations in there; • Brazilian Geographic Names Ontology to treat the concepts associated with historical, ethnological and linguistic characteristics of toponyms. • Implementation of a framework for semantic integration of spatial data from INDE using this proposed geo-ontology: under development. 21

  21. Congratulations ? A geo-ontology to support the semantic integration of geoinformation from the National Spatial Data Infrastructure paulo.gimenez@uniriotec.br tanaka@uniriotec.br fernanda.baiao@uniriotec.br

More Related