Ontology-based discovery of time-series data sources for landslide early warning system

Modern early warning system (EWS) requires sophisticated knowledge of the natural hazards, the urban context and underlying risk factors to enable dynamic and timely decision making (e.g., hazard detection, hazard preparedness). Landslides are a common form of natural hazard with a global impact and closely linked to a variety of other hazards. EWS for landslides prediction and detection relies on scientific methods and models which requires input from the time series data, such as the earth observation (EO) and urban environment data. Such data sets are produced by a variety of remote sensing satellites and Internet of things sensors which are deployed in the landslide prone areas. To this end, the automatic discovery of potential time series data sources has become a challenge due to the complexity and high variety of data sources. To solve this hard research problem, in this paper, we propose a novel ontology, namely Landslip Ontology, to provide the knowledge base that establishes relationship between landslide hazard and EO and urban data sources. The purpose of Landslip Ontology is to facilitate time series data source discovery for the verification and prediction of landslide hazards. The ontology is evaluated based on scenarios and competency questions to verify the coverage and consistency. Moreover, the ontology can also be used to realize the implementation of data sources discovery system which is an essential component in EWS that needs to manage (store, search, process) rich information from heterogeneous data sources.

[1]  Karl Aberer,et al.  Semantic Sensor Data Search in a Large-Scale Federated Sensor Network , 2011, SSN.

[2]  Lizhe Wang,et al.  Fast and Scalable Multi-Way Analysis of Massive Neural Data , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[3]  Armin Haller,et al.  Semantic Sensor Network Ontology , 2017 .

[4]  Michael Uschold,et al.  Ontologies: principles, methods and applications , 1996, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[5]  Bilişim Observations and Measurements , 2010 .

[6]  Mark Needleman,et al.  The W3C Semantic Web Activity , 2003 .

[7]  Cyrus Shahabi,et al.  On Identifying Disaster-Related Tweets: Matching-Based or Learning-Based? , 2017, 2017 IEEE Third International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (BigMM).

[8]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Web Ontology Language: OWL , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[9]  D. George Understanding Structural and Semantic Heterogeneity in the Context of Database Schema Integration , 2006 .

[10]  Mauricio Barcellos Almeida,et al.  Ontologies in knowledge management support: A case study , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Jó Ueyama,et al.  Development of a spatial decision support system for flood risk management in Brazil that combines volunteered geographic information with wireless sensor networks , 2015, Comput. Geosci..

[12]  Hongzhou Shen Discussion and Analysis of the Crowdsourcing Mode of Public Participation in Emergency Management , 2015, 2015 8th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design (ISCID).

[13]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  The NeOn Methodology for Ontology Engineering , 2012, Ontology Engineering in a Networked World.

[14]  Mark S. Fox,et al.  The Role of Competency Questions in Enterprise Engineering , 1995 .

[15]  S. L. Kuriakose,et al.  History of landslide susceptibility and a chorology of landslide-prone areas in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India , 2009 .

[16]  Albert Y. Zomaya,et al.  H-PARAFAC: Hierarchical Parallel Factor Analysis of Multidimensional Big Data , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[17]  Rajiv Ranjan,et al.  Urban Risk Analytics in the Cloud , 2017, IT Prof..

[18]  Jeremy J. Carroll,et al.  Resource description framework (rdf) concepts and abstract syntax , 2003 .

[19]  Joel C. Gill,et al.  Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazardmethodologies , 2016 .

[20]  Yang Hong,et al.  Towards an early‐warning system for global landslides triggered by rainfall and earthquake , 2007 .

[21]  Tom Dijkstra,et al.  The National Landslide Database of Great Britain: Acquisition, communication and the role of social media , 2015 .

[22]  Qiang Wei,et al.  Service discovery for internet of things: a context-awareness perspective , 2012, Internetware.

[23]  Gerd Stumme,et al.  Mining social media to inform peatland fire and haze disaster management , 2017, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[24]  Holger Knublauch,et al.  Ontology-Driven Software Development in the Context of the Semantic Web: An Example Scenario with Protégé/OWL , 2004 .

[25]  J. C. Gaillard,et al.  Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built‐in Resilience , 2011 .

[26]  C. J. van Westen Landslide risk assessments for decision - making , 2012 .

[27]  Bruce D. Malamud,et al.  Hazard Interactions and Interaction Networks (Cascades) within Multi-Hazard Methodologies , 2016 .

[28]  S. Lacasse,et al.  Landslide Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy , 2009 .

[29]  Joel C. Gill,et al.  Anthropogenic processes, natural hazards, and interactions in a multi-hazard framework , 2017 .

[30]  Albert Y. Zomaya,et al.  Bayesian tensor factorization for multi-way analysis of multi-dimensional EEG , 2018, Neurocomputing.

[31]  Robert G. Raskin,et al.  Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET) , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[32]  Xiaoli Li,et al.  Cloud‐aided online EEG classification system for brain healthcare: A case study of depression evaluation with a lightweight CNN , 2020, Softw. Pract. Exp..