Design and development of linked data from The National Map

The development of linked data on the World-Wide Web provides the opportunity for the U.S. Geological Survey USGS to supply its extensive volumes of geospatial data, information, and knowledge in a machine interpretable form and reach users and applications that heretofore have been unavailable. To pilot a process to take advantage of this opportunity, the USGS is developing an ontology for The National Map and converting selected data from nine research test areas to a Semantic Web format to support machine processing and linked data access. In a case study, the USGS has developed initial methods for legacy vector and raster formatted geometry, attributes, and spatial relationships to be accessed in a linked data environment maintaining the capability to generate graphic or image output from semantic queries. The description of an initial USGS approach to developing ontology, linked data, and initial query capability from The National Map databases is presented.

[1]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  OWL: Web Ontology Language , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[2]  Helen Couclelis,et al.  Ontologies of geographic information , 2010, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[3]  E. L. Usery.  Category Theory and the Structure of Features in Geographic Information Systems , 1993 .

[4]  Stefano Spaccapietra,et al.  Journal on Data Semantics III , 2005, Journal on Data Semantics III.

[5]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Ontology Design Patterns for Semantic Web Content , 2005, SEMWEB.

[6]  Miguel Torres Ruiz,et al.  Towards a Semantic Representation of Raster Spatial Data , 2009, GeoS.

[7]  Tom Heath,et al.  Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space , 2011, Linked Data.

[8]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Ontology Design Patterns , 2005 .

[9]  E. L. Usery.  A feature-based geographic information system model , 1996 .

[10]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  Resource Description Framework (RDF) , 2009 .

[11]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[12]  A. James.  2010 , 2011, Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 2007-2016.

[13]  Dalia Varanka,et al.  Ontology Patterns for Complex Topographic Feature Types , 2011 .

[14]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  OWL: Web Ontology Language , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[15]  Roberto Casati,et al.  Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation , 1999 .

[16]  Catherine Dolbear,et al.  Position paper on Expressing Relational Data as RDF , 2007 .

[17]  Catherine Dolbear,et al.  What OWL Has Done for Geography and Why We Don't Need it to Map Read , 2006, OWLED.

[18]  A. Monteiro,et al.  Action-Driven Ontologies of the Geographical Space : Beyond the Field-Object Debate , 2000 .

[19]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[20]  Wu Lun.  Research on GSQL Extension Supporting Raster Data , 2005 .

[21]  Denis J. Dean,et al.  Characterizing Spatial Databases via their Derivation: A Complement to Content Ontologies , 2007, Trans. GIS.

[22]  Boyan Brodaric.  A Foundational Framework for Structuring Geographical Categories , 2008 .

[23]  Dalia Varanka,et al.  An analysis of spatial relation predicates in U.S. Geological Survey feature definitions , 2011 .

[24]  Tim Berners-Lee,et al.  Linked data , 2020, Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist.

[25]  L. Sugarbaker,et al.  The National Map , 2011 .

[26]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships , 2001, Data Knowl. Eng..

[27]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[28]  Marinos Kavouras,et al.  Fusion of top-level and geographical domain ontologies based on context formation and complementarity , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[29]  P. Burrough,et al.  Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries , 1996 .

[30]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  WonderWeb Deliverable D18 Ontology Library , 2003 .

[31]  Larry Sugarbaker,et al.  The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys , 2009 .

[32]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[33]  T. M. Lillesand,et al.  Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation , 1980 .

[34]  Sumit Sen.  Two Types of Hierarchies in Geospatial Ontologies , 2007, GeoS.

[35]  Dalia Varanka,et al.  Landscape Features, Standards, and Semantics in U.S. National Topographic Mapping Databases , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Advanced Geographic Information Systems & Web Services.

[36]  D. Varanka.  A topographic feature taxonomy for a U.S. national topographic mapping ontology , 2009 .

[37]  M. Egenhofer,et al.  Point-Set Topological Spatial Relations , 2001 .

[38]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  Geospatial Semantics: Why, of What, and How? , 2005, J. Data Semant..

[39]  E. Lynn Usery,et al.  Ontological Issues for National Topographic Mapping , 2010, Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization.

[40]  Dalia Varanka,et al.  A program for the conversion of The National Map data from proprietary format to resource description framework (RDF) , 2011 .

[41]  I. Vasiliniuc.  Book review of „Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation”, 5th edition (Lillesand M. Thomas, Kiefer W. Ralph, Chipman W. Jonathan) , 2007 .