Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
GeoInformatica
Erschienen in: GeoInformatica 2/2007

01.06.2007

Contextualization of Geospatial Database Semantics for Human–GIS Interaction

verfasst von: Guoray Cai

Erschienen in: GeoInformatica | Ausgabe 2/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Human interactions with geographical information are contextualized by problem-solving activities which endow meaning to geospatial data and processing. However, existing spatial data models have not taken this aspect of semantics into account. This paper extends spatial data semantics to include not only the contents and schemas, but also the contexts of their use. We specify such a semantic model in terms of three related components: activity-centric context representation, contextualized ontology space, and context mediated semantic exchange. Contextualization of spatial data semantics allows the same underlying data to take multiple semantic forms, and disambiguate spatial concepts based on localized contexts. We demonstrate how such a semantic model supports contextualized interpretation of vague spatial concepts during human–GIS interactions. We employ conversational dialogue as the mechanism to perform collaborative diagnosis of context and to coordinate sharing of meaning across agents and data sources.
Vorheriger Artikel Efficient Detection of Patterns in 2D Trajectories of Moving Points
Nächster Artikel Multi-level Topological Relations Between Spatial Regions Based Upon Topological Invariants

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
K. Aberer, T. Catarci, P. Cudre-Mauroux, T. Dillon, S. Grimm, M.-S. Hacid, A. Illarramendi, M. Jarrar, V. Kashyap, M. Mecella, E. Mena, E. J. Neuhold, A. M. Ouksel, T. Risse, M. Scannapieco, F. Saltor, L. de Santis, S. Spaccapietra, S. Staab, R. Studer, and O. De Troyer. “Emergent semantics systems,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3226, 3226 edition, pp. 14–43, 2004.
2.
P. Agarwal. “Ontological considerations in GIScience,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 19:501–536, 2005.CrossRef
3.
I.B. Arpinar, A. Sheth, C. Ramakrishnan, E.L. Usery, M. Azami, and M. Kwan. “Geospatial ontology development and semantic analytics,” in J.P. Wilson and A.S. Fotheringham (Eds.), Handbook of Geographic Information Science, Blackwell: Boston, MA, 2005.
4.
L.W. Barsalou. “Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts,” Memory & Cognition, Vol. 10:82–93, 1982.
5.
L.W. Barsalou, W. Yeh, B.J. Luka, K.L. Olseth, K.S. Mix, and L. Wu, “Concepts and meaning,” in K. Beals, G. Cooke, D. Kathman, K.E. McCullough, S. Kita, and D. Testen (Eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society 29: Papers from the Parasession on Conceptual Representations, University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 23–61, 1993.
6.
Y. Bishr. “Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 12:299–314, 1998.CrossRef
7.
P. Bouquet, F. Giunchiglia, F. van Harmelen, L. Serafini, and H. Stuckenschmidt. C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies, 2870 edition, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2003.
8.
P. Bouquet, F. Giunchiglia, F. van Harmelen, L. Serafini, and H. Stuckenschmidt. “Contextualizing ontologies,” Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Vol. 1:325–343, 2004.CrossRef
9.
J. Brodeur, Y. Bedard, G. Edwards, and B. Moulin. “Revisiting the concept of geospatial data interoperability within the scope of human communication processes,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 7:243–265, 2003.CrossRef
10.
G. Cai, H. Wang, and A.M. MacEachren, “Communicating vague spatial concepts in human–GIS interactions: A collaborative dialogue approach,” in W. Kuhn, M.F. Worboys, and S. Timpf (Eds.), Spatial information theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2825), Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 287–300, 2003.
11.
G. Cai, H. Wang, A.M. MacEachren, and S. Fuhrmann. “Natural conversational interfaces to geospatial databases,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 9:199–221, 2005.CrossRef
12.
G. Camara, A.M.V. Monteiro, J. Paiva, and R.C.M. Souza. “Action-driven ontologies of the geographical space: Beyond the field-object debate,” presented at Proceedings of the first International Conference GIScience, October 28–31, 2000, Savannah, GA, 2000.
13.
A.G. Cohn. “The challenge of qualitative spatial reasoning,” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 27(3):323–325, September 1995.
14.
J.L. De Oliveira, F. Pires, and C.B. Medeiros. “An environment for modeling and design of geographic applications,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 1:29–58, 1997.CrossRef
15.
M. Egenhofer. “Toward the semantic geospatial web,” presented at ACM GIS’2002—International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, McLean, VI, 2002.
16.
M.J. Egenhofer and D.M. Mark. “Naive geography,” in A.U. Frank and W. Kuhn (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, No. 988. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1–15, 1995.
17.
M.J. Egenhofer, A. Rashid, and B.M. Shariff. “Metric details for natural-language spatial relations,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 16:295–321, 1998.CrossRef
18.
P. Fisher and T. Orf. “An investigation of the meaning of near and close on a university campus,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 15:23–25, 1991.CrossRef
19.
F. Fonseca, M. Egenhofer, P. Agouris, and G. Câmara. “Using ontologies for integrated geographic information systems,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 6:231–257, 2002.CrossRef
20.
F. Fonseca, M. Egenhofer, C. Davis, and G. Camara. “Semantic granularity in ontology-driven geographic information systems,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36:121–151, 2002.CrossRef
21.
22.
A.U. Frank. “Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:667–678, 2001.CrossRef
23.
A.U. Frank. “Ontology for spatial–temporal databases,” in T. Sellis (Ed.), Spatial–Temporal Databases (LNCS 2520). Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 9–77, 2003.
24.
A.U. Frank and D.M. Mark. “Language issues for GIS,” in D.J. Maguire, M.F. Goodchild, and D.W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, vol. 1. Longmans: London, 147–163, 1991.
25.
A.U. Frank and M. Raubal. “Formal specification of image schemata—A step towards interoperability in geographic information systems,” Spatial Cognition and Computation, Vol. 1:67–101, 1999.CrossRef
26.
C.H. Goh, S. Bressan, S.E. Madnick, and M.D. Siegal. “Context interchange: New features and formalisms for the intelligent integration of information,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 17:270–293, 1999.CrossRef
27.
M. Goodchild, M. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C.A. Kottman. Interoperating Geographic Information Systems. Boston: Kluwer, 1998.
28.
B.J. Grosz and S. Kraus. “Collaborative plans for complex group action,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 86:269–357, 1996.CrossRef
29.
T. Gruber. “Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing,” International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, Vol. 43:907–928, 1995.CrossRef
30.
N. Guarino. “Formal ontologies and information systems,” presented at Proc. of 1998 Workshop on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Trento, Italy, IOS: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998.
31.
R. Guha and J. McCarthy. “Varieties of contexts,” in P. Blackburn (Ed.), LNAI 2680: Proceedings of Context‘03, 2680 edition: Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York 164–177, 2003.
32.
T. Hadzilacos and N. Tryfona. “Extending the entity-relational model to capture spatial semantics,” SIGMOD RECORD, Vol. 26, 1997.
33.
J.F. Hangouet. “Geographical multi-representation: Striving for the hyphenation,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 18:309–326, 2004.CrossRef
34.
S. Haridi, K. Aberer, P. Van Roy, and M. Colajanni. “Topic 18: Peer-to-peer and web computing,” in M. Danelutto, D. Laforenza, and M. Vanneschi (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3149: Euro-Par 2004, 1013, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2004.
35.
F. Harvey, W. Kuhn, H. Pundt, Y. Bishr, and C. Riedemann. “Semantic interoperability: A central issue for sharing geographic information,” The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 33:213–232, 1999.CrossRef
36.
C.B. Jones, H. Alani, and D. Tudhope. “Geographical information retrieval with ontologies of place,” in D.R. Montello (Ed.), LNCS 2205: Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science—Proceedings of COSIT 2001 International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Morro Bay, CA, USA, September 19–23, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2205, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 322–335, 2001.
37.
V. Kashyap and A. Sheth. “Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: A context-based approach,” The VLDB Journal, Vol. 5:276–304, 1996.CrossRef
38.
V. Khatri. “Augmenting a conceptual model with geospatiotemporal annotations,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 16:1324–1338, 2004.CrossRef
39.
W. Kuhn. “Ontologies in support of activities in geographical space,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:613–631, 2001.CrossRef
40.
R. Laurini and D. Thompson. Fundamentals of Spatial Information Systems. London: Academic, 1992.
41.
J.L. Lee and M.D. Siegel. “An ontological and semantical approach to source–receiver interoperability,” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 18:145–158, 1996.CrossRef
42.
Y. Leung, K.S. Leung, and J.Z. He. “A generic concept-based object-oriented geographical information system,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 13:475–498, 1999.CrossRef
43.
M. Liebhold. The geospatial web: A call to action: What we still need to build for an insanely cool open geospatial web, O’Reilly Network: Sebastopol, CA, 2005.
44.
K.E. Lochbaum. “A collaborative planning model of intentional structure,” Computational Linguistics, Vol. 24:525–572, 1998.
45.
A.M. MacEachren, G. Cai, R. Sharma, I. Rauschert, I. Brewer, L. Bolelli, B. Shaparenko, S. Fuhrmann, and H. Wang. “Enabling collaborative geoinformation access and decision-making through a natural, multimodal interface,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 19:293–317, 2005.CrossRef
46.
D.M. Mark and M.D. Gould. “Interacting with geographic information: A commentary,” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 57:1427–1430, 1991.
47.
D.M. Mark, B. Smith, and B. Tversky. “Ontology and geographic objects: An empirical study of cognitive categorization,” in C. Freksa and D.M. Mark (Eds.), COSIT’99––Conference on Spatial Information Theory, LNCS 1661, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 283–298, 1999.
48.
J. McCarthy and S. Buvac. “Formalizing context (expanded notes),” in A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, and D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Computing Natural Language, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1997.
49.
R. Meersman. “An essay on the role and evolution of data(base) semantics,” presented at Database Applications Semantics: Proceedings of the Sixth IFIP TC-2 Working Conference on Data Semantics (DS-6), 1996.
50.
R. Meersman. “Ontologies and databases: More than a fleeting resemblance,” in A. D’Atri and M. Missikoff (Eds.), OES/SEO 2001 Rome Workhop. Luiss, 2001.
51.
J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. “Telos: Representing knowledge about information systems,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 8:325–362, 1990.CrossRef
52.
J. Mylopoulos and R. Motschnig-Pitrik. “Partitioning information bases with contexts,” presented at Proc. of CoopIS’95, Vienna, Austria, 1995.
53.
B.A. Nardi. “Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction.” MIT: Cambridge, MA, 1996.
54.
55.
A.M. Ouksel and I. Ahmed. “Ontologies are not the Panacea in data integration: A flexible coordinator to mediate context construction,” Distributed and Parallel Databases, Vol. 7:7–35, 1999.CrossRef
56.
J. Park and S. Ram. “Information systems interoperability: What lies beneath?,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 22:595–632, 2004.CrossRef
57.
P. Prekop and M. Burnett. “Activities, context and ubiquitous computing,” Computer Communications, Vol. 26:1168–1176, 2003.CrossRef
58.
H. Pundt. “Field data collection with mobile GIS: Dependencies between semantics and data quality,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 6:363–380, 2002.CrossRef
59.
H. Pundt and Y. Bishr. “Domain ontologies for data sharing––An example from environmental monitoring using field GIS,” Computers & Geosciences, Vol. 28:95–102, 2002.CrossRef
60.
V.B. Robinson. “Individual and multipersonal fuzzy spatial relations acquired using human–machine interaction,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 113:133–145, 2000.CrossRef
61.
R. Sharma, M. Yeasin, N. Krahnstoever, Rauschert, G. Cai, I. Brewer, A. MacEachren, and K. Sengupta. “Speech-gesture driven multimodal interfaces for crisis management,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 91:1327–1354, 2003.CrossRef
62.
A. Sheth. “Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: From system, syntax, structure to semantics,” in M.F. Goodchild, M.J. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C.A. Kottman (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, Kluwer, 5–30, 1999.
63.
B. Smith and D.M. Mark. “Ontology and geographic kinds,” presented at Proceedings, Eighth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, 1998.
64.
B. Smith and D.M. Mark. “Geographical categories: An ontological investigation,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:591–612, 2001.CrossRef
65.
B. Smith and A.C. Varzi. “Fiat and bona fide boundaries,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 60:401–420, 2000.CrossRef
66.
P. Spyns, R. Meersman, and M. Jarrar. “Data modelling versus ontology engineering,” SIGMOD RECORD, Vol. 31, 2002.
67.
L. Suchman. Plan’s and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1987.
68.
M. Theodorakis, A. Analyti, P. Constantopoulos, and N. Spyratos. “Contextualization as an abstraction mechanism for conceptual modeling,” presented at LNCS 1728: Proceeding of the 18th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER‘99), Paris, France, 1999.
69.
S. Timpf. “Ontologies of wayfinding: A traveler’s perspective,” Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 2:9–33, 2002.CrossRef
70.
E. Tomai and M. Kavouras. “From “Onto-geoNoesis” to “Onto-genesis”: The design of geographic ontologies,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 8:285–302, 2004.CrossRef
71.
R.M. Turner. “Context-mediated behavior for intelligent agent,” International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, Special issue on Using Context in Applications, Vol. 48:307–330, 1998.
72.
R.M. Turner. A Model of Explicit Context Representation and Use for Intelligent Agents, Vol. 1688, 1999.
73.
U. Visser, H. Stuckenschmidt, G. Schuster, and T. Vogele. “Ontologies for geographic information processing,” Computers & Geosciences, Vol. 28:103–117, 2002.CrossRef
74.
G. Wiederhold. “Mediators in the architecture of future information systems,” Computer, Vol. 25:38–49, 1992.CrossRef
75.
S. Winter. “Ontology: Buzzword or paradigm shift in GI science?,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:587–590, 2001.CrossRef
76.
S. Winter and A.U. Frank. “Topology in raster and vector representation,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 4:35–65, 2000.CrossRef
77.
M.F. Worboys. “Nearness relations in environmental space,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:633–651, 2001.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Contextualization of Geospatial Database Semantics for Human–GIS Interaction
verfasst von
Guoray Cai
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2007
Erschienen in
GeoInformatica / Ausgabe 2/2007
Print ISSN: 1384-6175
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7624
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-006-0001-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2007

GeoInformatica 2/2007 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Algorithms for Nearest Neighbor Search on Moving Object Trajectories

OriginalPaper

Multi-level Topological Relations Between Spatial Regions Based Upon Topological Invariants

OriginalPaper

A Schedule-based Pathfinding Algorithm for Transit Networks Using Pattern First Search

OriginalPaper

Efficient Detection of Patterns in 2D Trajectories of Moving Points