Methodology for geospatial data source discovery in ontology-driven geo-information integration architectures

Due to advances in information, communication and sensing technologies, the amount of generated geospatial information is constantly growing. Since geospatial information is generated and made available over the Internet by different stakeholders, heterogeneity of geospatial data and geospatial data sources becomes inevitable. This heterogeneity of globally available geospatial data sources introduces great challenges for individuals who are trying to discover and assemble geospatial data from distributed geospatial data sources. From the standpoint of individuals who do not belong to Geo-Information System (GIS) realm but belong to a group of geoportal users group, the process of discovering and accessing heterogeneous geospatial data has proven to be a difficult one to govern. Since geoportals are foreseen as single points of discovery and access to geo-information, geoportal users expect geoportal to provide them with a mechanism to easily find (discover) what they are searching for, using their own language. Such mechanism would significantly improve the usability of a geoportal and user satisfaction. The implementation of such mechanism highly depends on the infrastructure a geoportal relies on-an interoperable geo-information dissemination environment.To enhance discoverability of geospatial data and lay the knowledge foundation that can be used for geoportal usability improvement, scientists and engineers have developed interoperable geoinformation dissemination environments based on the following approaches: syntactic standardization and semantic annotation of Web-accessible geo-information sources, and ontology-driven geoinformation integration. Despite these approaches enhance discovery of heterogeneous and distributed geospatial data sources, there are still some issues which should be addressed to make geospatial data sources fully discoverable. As an example, in most cases geoportal users are not provided with an explicit description of the meaning of geospatial resources or may not know what keywords they should use to discover appropriate geo-information.Given these challenges, we have defined a novel methodology used for geoportal usability improvement. Our methodology is foreseen to be used within geoportals relying on ontology-driven geo-information integration architectures. An approach implemented within this methodology utilizes terms extracted from a natural language description of geo-information, defined by the end users. User-defined description is disambiguated through means of a combination of unsupervised word sense disambiguation methods. Once disambiguated, this description is matched with the sense of the (domain/local) ontology concept names. The matching process is performed through semantic similarity measurement between disambiguated user-defined description and the sense of the (domain/local) ontology concepts.Our methodology simplifies geospatial data discovery and can be easily implemented because it uses ontological components of the underlying architectures in their original form. The methodology we describe in this paper will be discussed in the context of similar prominent solutions. Also, this paper will present a prototype which will demonstrate the applicability of the proposed methodology. The implemented prototype is a stand-alone desktop application, which uses two resources as input: userdefined geo-information description and (domain/local) ontologies developed using Web Ontology Language (OWL). We will provide an overview of benefits over approaches that have been previously used for geospatial data discovery and offer guidelines for future improvement and development.

[1]  Georgios Meditskos,et al.  Structural and Role-Oriented Web Service Discovery with Taxonomies in OWL-S , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[2]  Mutao Huang,et al.  Enhance discovery and retrieval of geospatial data using SOA and Semantic Web technologies , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[3]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  Wisdom of crowds versus wisdom of linguists – measuring the semantic relatedness of words , 2009, Natural Language Engineering.

[4]  David R. Maidment,et al.  Crossing the digital divide: an interoperable solution for sharing time series and coverages in Earth sciences , 2012 .

[5]  Karla A. V. Borges,et al.  Ontologies and Knowledge Sharing in Urban GIS , 2000 .

[6]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Comparing geospatial entity classes: an asymmetric and context-dependent similarity measure , 2004, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[7]  P. Maué,et al.  Baseline for Registering and Annotating Geodata in a Semantic Web Service Framework 1 , 2007 .

[8]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology-Based Integration of Information - A Survey of Existing Approaches , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[9]  C. Bizer,et al.  D2R MAP - A Database to RDF Mapping Language , 2003, WWW.

[10]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[11]  Krzysztof Janowicz,et al.  The semantics of similarity in geographic information retrieval , 2011, J. Spatial Inf. Sci..

[12]  L. Stoimenov,et al.  Semantic Interoperability Using Multiple Ontologies , 2005 .

[13]  Michael G. Tait,et al.  Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[14]  J. Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching , 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[15]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  Using the web service modeling ontology to enable semantic e-business , 2005, CACM.

[16]  Roy Rada,et al.  Development and application of a metric on semantic nets , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[17]  Ted Pedersen,et al.  Using WordNet-based Context Vectors to Estimate the Semantic Relatedness of Concepts , 2006 .

[18]  Martin F. Porter,et al.  An algorithm for suffix stripping , 1997, Program.

[19]  Jens Wiebensohn,et al.  Überführung landwirtschaftlicher Schlagwortlisten in das Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) , 2013, GIL Jahrestagung.

[20]  Bernd Resch,et al.  User Experience Design in Professional Map-Based Geo-Portals , 2013, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[21]  Slobodanka Djordjevic-Kajan,et al.  An architecture for interoperable GIS use in a local community environment , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[22]  Alejandra Cechich,et al.  Ontology-driven geographic information integration: A survey of current approaches , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[23]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Approach , 2004, SWSWPC.

[24]  Georgios Meditskos,et al.  A combinatory framework of Web 2.0 mashup tools, OWL-S and UDDI , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[25]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Data Integration: A Logic-Based Perspective , 2005, AI Mag..

[26]  Geoffrey C. Fox,et al.  High performance, federated, service-oriented geographic information systems () , 2009 .

[27]  Miriam Baglioni,et al.  Building Geospatial Ontologies from Geographical Databases , 2007, GeoS.

[28]  David W. Conrath,et al.  Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy , 1997, ROCLING/IJCLCLP.

[29]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Triplify: light-weight linked data publication from relational databases , 2009, WWW '09.

[30]  Leonid Stoimenov,et al.  Realization of Component-Based GIS Application Framework , 2004 .

[31]  J. Caleb Goodwin,et al.  Survey of Semantic Extensions to UDDI: Implications for Sensor Services , 2007, SWWS.

[32]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Approaches to Semantic Web Services: an Overview and Comparisons , 2004, ESWS.

[33]  Frederico T. Fonseca,et al.  Ontology-driven geographic information systems , 1999, GIS '99.

[34]  Philip Resnik,et al.  Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy , 1995, IJCAI.

[35]  Iraklis Paraskakis,et al.  Combining SAWSDL, OWL-DL and UDDI for Semantically Enhanced Web Service Discovery , 2008, ESWC.

[36]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Combining Local Context and Wordnet Similarity for Word Sense Identification , 1998 .

[37]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[38]  Angela Schwering,et al.  Approaches to Semantic Similarity Measurement for Geo‐Spatial Data: A Survey , 2008, Trans. GIS.

[39]  M. Lutz,et al.  Overcoming semantic heterogeneity in spatial data infrastructures , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[40]  Roberto Navigli,et al.  Word sense disambiguation: A survey , 2009, CSUR.

[41]  Dekang Lin,et al.  An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity , 1998, ICML.

[42]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection , 1994, ACL.

[43]  Menno-Jan Kraak REENGINEERING THE GEOPORTAL : APPLYING HCI AND GEOVISUALIZATION DISCIPLINES , 2005 .

[44]  Leonid Stoimenov,et al.  Methodology and intermediate layer for the automatic creation of ontology instances stored in relational databases , 2013, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[45]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  Semantic reference systems , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[46]  Andreas Richter,et al.  From Geoportals to Geographic Knowledge Portals , 2013, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[47]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[48]  Leonid Stoimenov FRAMEWORK FOR SEMANTIC GIS INTEROPERABILITY , 2002 .

[49]  Ted Pedersen,et al.  An Adapted Lesk Algorithm for Word Sense Disambiguation Using WordNet , 2002, CICLing.

[50]  Chris Higgins,et al.  A semantic registry using a Feature Type Catalogue instead of ontologies to support spatial data infrastructures , 2010, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[51]  Ioannis Kanellopoulos,et al.  The European geoportal - one step towards the establishment of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[52]  Evangelos Sakkopoulos,et al.  Plan4All GeoPortal: web of spatial data , 2012, WWW.

[53]  Kokou Yétongnon,et al.  DB2OWL : A Tool for Automatic Database-to-Ontology Mapping , 2007, SEBD.