In last decades a key problem in adopting technologies in planning process was a chronic lack of data. But in recent times, such problem was inverted due to the overabundance of data produced in different periods, with various purposes, at multiple scales and with different cognitive models. This situation generated three types of barriers to data interoperability: bureaucratic, technological, semantic. While the first two issues have been solved taking various initiatives, the last one could be solved using ontologies. Concepts are the cornerstone of the ontology, but it is not easy to define a concept without any ambiguity, discordance or vagueness. A concept can be clear or not; ambiguity occurs when a concept is not much clear; while discordance arises when an agreement is missing. If the concept definition can present some incoherence, the broad boundaries model can be useful in Ontology representation. This model is an extension of the 9-intersection model used for the topological relationship among geographical objects. The model with broad boundaries deals with uncertainty in spatial data taking into account ill defined aspects. This model is based on the definitions of inner and broad boundaries. Using this model in Ontology field, the inner boundary is the edge of the part of a concept without doubts and the broad boundary is the grey zone, with a certain level of uncertainty, useful to represent ambiguity, discordance and vagueness. Topology rules represent the relationship among concepts. If two concepts are identical, the "equal" rule can be used; if they share some parts, the "overlap" rule is suitable. If two concepts are completely different, the "disjoint" rule can be applied. If a concept is a subset of another, there are several rules which can help us ("covers", "covered by", "contains" and "inside"). In case all concepts are clear, these relationships can be modelled using the 9-intersection model. The way to define the part of concept included inside the inner boundary and the other one included in the broad boundary can be achieved using rough set theory. All the aspects of a concept classified in the same way represent the indiscernible part of the concept and are included inside lower approximation (inner boundary). The remaining part represents an uncertainty zone and it falls within the upper approximation (outer boundary). The measure of the degree of uncertainty inside the upper approximation can be modelled using fuzzy set theory. This approach has been tested with several concepts particularly suitable to verify the hypothesis.
[1]
Frederico T. Fonseca,et al.
Semantic Granularity in Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems
,
2002,
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.
[2]
A. Turner,et al.
Introduction to neogeography
,
2006
.
[3]
Timothy W. Finin,et al.
Enabling Technology for Knowledge Sharing
,
1991,
AI Mag..
[4]
Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse,et al.
Rough Sets
,
1995,
Commun. ACM.
[5]
Masaru Kitsuregawa,et al.
Cyber Infrastructure for the Information-Explosion Era( Grant in Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas: Cyber Infrastructure for the Information Explosion Era)
,
2007
.
[6]
B. Noveck.
Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful
,
2009
.
[7]
Eliseo Clementini,et al.
A spatial model for complex objects with a broad boundary supporting queries on uncertain data
,
2001,
Data Knowl. Eng..
[8]
Maurizio Ferraris,et al.
Dove sei? Ontologia del telefonino
,
2005
.
[9]
Beniamino Murgante,et al.
Using participative GIS and e-tools for involving citizens of Marmo Platano–Melandro area in European programming activities
,
2011
.
[10]
A. Krek.
Rational Ignorance of the Citizens in Public Partic ipatory Planning
,
2005
.
[11]
Michael F. Goodchild,et al.
NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise
,
2009,
J. Locat. Based Serv..
[12]
Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.
Fuzzy Sets
,
1996,
Inf. Control..
[13]
Beniamino Murgante,et al.
Plan4all: European Network of Best Practices for Interoperability of Spatial Planning Information
,
2011,
2011 International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications.
[14]
Helen Couclelis,et al.
Ontologies of geographic information
,
2010,
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..
[15]
Michael F. Goodchild,et al.
Citizens as Voluntary Sensors: Spatial Data Infrastructure in the World of Web 2.0
,
2007,
Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..
[16]
Timothy W. Finin,et al.
Swartout: Enabling technology for knowledge sharing
,
1991
.
[17]
P. Healey.
Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory
,
1992
.
[18]
Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran,et al.
What are ontologies, and why do we need them?
,
1999,
IEEE Intell. Syst..
[19]
M. Egenhofer.
Categorizing Binary Topological Relations Between Regions, Lines, and Points in Geographic Databases
,
1998
.
[20]
Beniamino Murgante,et al.
Building ontologies for disaster management: Seismic risk domain
,
2009
.
[21]
Max J. Egenhofer,et al.
Reasoning about Binary Topological Relations
,
1991,
SSD.