Semantic integration for mapping the underworld

Utility infrastructure is vital to the daily life of modern society. As the vast majority of urban utility assets are buried underneath public roads, the need to install/repair utility assets often requires opening ground with busy traffic. Unfortunately, at present most excavation works are carried out without knowing exactly what is where, which causes far more street breakings than necessary. This research studies how maximum benefit can be gained from the existing knowledge of buried assets. The key challenge here is that utility data is heterogeneous, which arises due to different domain perceptions and varying data modelling practices. This research investigates factors which prevent utility knowledge from being fully exploited and suggests that integration techniques can be applied for reconciling semantic heterogeneity within the utility domain. In this paper we discuss the feasibility of a common utility ontology to describe underground assets, and present techniques for constructing a basic utility ontology in the form of a thesaurus. The paper also demonstrates how the utility thesaurus developed is employed as a shared ontology for mapping utility data. Experiments have been performed to evaluate the techniques proposed, and feedback from industrial partners is encouraging and shows that techniques work effectively with real world utility data.

[1]  Chris Clifton,et al.  SEMINT: A tool for identifying attribute correspondences in heterogeneous databases using neural networks , 2000, Data Knowl. Eng..

[2]  Todd D. Millstein,et al.  Navigational Plans For Data Integration , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  Peishen Qi,et al.  Ontology Translation on the Semantic Web , 2003, OTM.

[4]  Alexandra Poulovassilis,et al.  Data integration by bi-directional schema transformation rules , 2003, Proceedings 19th International Conference on Data Engineering (Cat. No.03CH37405).

[5]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Query processing in the SIMS information mediator , 1997 .

[6]  Martin L. Kersten,et al.  A Graph-Oriented Model for Articulation of Ontology Interdependencies , 1999, EDBT.

[7]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: a machine-learning approach , 2001, SIGMOD '01.

[8]  Marinos Kavouras,et al.  A method for the formalization and integration of geographical categorizations , 2002, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Vipul Kashyap,et al.  OBSERVER: An Approach for Query Processing in Global Information Systems Based on Interoperation Across Pre-Existing Ontologies , 2000, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[10]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Data integration: a theoretical perspective , 2002, PODS.

[11]  Peishen Qi,et al.  Ontology Translation on the Semantic Web , 2003, J. Data Semant..

[12]  Jungyun Seo,et al.  Classifying schematic and data heterogeneity in multidatabase systems , 1991, Computer.

[13]  Amihai Motro,et al.  Multiplex, Fusionplex and Autoplex: three generations of information integration , 2004, SGMD.

[14]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Schema mediation in peer data management systems , 2003, Proceedings 19th International Conference on Data Engineering (Cat. No.03CH37405).

[15]  Richard Hull,et al.  Managing semantic heterogeneity in databases: a theoretical prospective , 1997, PODS.

[16]  Boris Motik,et al.  MAFRA: an ontology mapping framework in the semantic web , 2002 .

[17]  Tamer E. El-Diraby,et al.  Ontological modeling of infrastructure products and related concepts , 2006 .

[18]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Information integration using logical views , 1997, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Natalya F. Noy,et al.  Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches , 2004, SGMD.

[20]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Answering queries using views: A survey , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[21]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Generic Schema Matching with Cupid , 2001, VLDB.

[22]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.