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
Computing
Erschienen in: Computing 2/2020

13.02.2019

Interpretation and automatic integration of geospatial data into the Semantic Web

Towards a process of automatic geospatial data interpretation, classification and integration using semantic technologies

verfasst von: Claire Prudhomme, Timo Homburg, Jean-Jacques Ponciano, Frank Boochs, Christophe Cruz, Ana-Maria Roxin

Erschienen in: Computing | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In the context of disaster management, geospatial information plays a crucial role in the decision-making process to protect and save the population. Gathering a maximum of information from different sources to oversee the current situation is a complex task due to the diversity of data formats and structures. Although several approaches have been designed to integrate data from different sources into an ontology, they mainly require background knowledge of the data. However, non-standard data set schema (NSDS) of relational geospatial data retrieved from e.g. web feature services are not always documented. This lack of background knowledge is a major challenge for automatic semantic data integration. Focusing on this problem, this article presents an automatic approach for geospatial data integration in NSDS. This approach does a schema mapping according to the result of an ontology matching corresponding to a semantic interpretation process. This process is based on geocoding and natural language processing. This article extends work done in a previous publication by an improved unit detection algorithm, data quality and provenance enrichments, the detection of feature clusters. It also presents an improved evaluation process to better assess the performance of this approach compared to a manually created ontology. These experiments have shown the automatic approach obtains an error of semantic interpretation around 10% according to a manual approach.
Vorheriger Artikel Method, formalization, and algorithms to split topology models for distributed cloud application deployments
Nächster Artikel How does serendipity affect diversity in recommender systems? A serendipity-oriented greedy algorithm

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

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

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+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
Fußnoten
3
https://​offenedaten-koeln.​de Open data portal of Cologne to retrieve data that we have converted in shapefiles.
 
4
http://​geoportal.​saarland.​de/​arcgis/​services/​Internet/​Gesundheit/​MapServer/​WFSServer Web service allowing for retrieving data from Saarland that we have converted in shapefiles.
 
5
A non-expert is someone who knows about Semantic Web technologies but does not know the context and the goal of the data set.
 
Literatur
1.
Alt H, Godau M (1995) Computing the Fréchet distance between two polygonal curves. Int J Comput Geom Appl 5(01n02):75–91MATHCrossRef
2.
3.
Auer S, Bizer C, Kobilarov G, Lehmann J, Cyganiak R, Ives Z (2007) Dbpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data. In: The semantic web, Springer, pp 722–735CrossRef
4.
Auer S, Lehmann J, Hellmann S (2009) Linkedgeodata: adding a spatial dimension to the web of data. In: International semantic web conference, Springer, pp 731–746
5.
Barron C, Neis P, Zipf A (2014) A comprehensive framework for intrinsic openstreetmap quality analysis. Trans GIS 18(6):877–895CrossRef
6.
Battle R, Kolas D (2011) Geosparql: enabling a geospatial semantic web. Semant Web J 3(4):355–370CrossRef
7.
Berretti S, Del Bimbo A, Pala P (2000) Retrieval by shape similarity with perceptual distance and effective indexing. IEEE Trans Multimed 2(4):225–239CrossRef
8.
Bizid I, Faiz S, Boursier Patriceand Yusuf JCM (2014) Integration of heterogeneous spatial databases for disaster management. In: Parsons J, Chiu D (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling: ER 2013 workshops, LSAWM, MoBiD, RIGiM, SeCoGIS, WISM, DaSeM, SCME, and PhD symposium, Hong Kong, China, November, 2013, revised selected papers. Springer, Cham, pp 77–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-319-14139-8_​10
9.
Brassel K, Bucher F, Stephan EM, Vckovski A (1995) Completeness. In: Guptill SC, Morrison JL (eds) Elements of spatial data quality. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 81–108CrossRef
10.
Burggraf DS (2006) Geography markup language. Data Sci J 5:178–204
11.
Buscaldi D, Rosso P (2008) Geo-wordnet: automatic georeferencing of wordnet. In: LREC
12.
Das S, Sundara S, Cyganiak R (2012) R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language, W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium, Cambridge
13.
Debruyne C, McGlinn K, McNerney L, O’Sullivan D (2017) A lightweight approach to explore, enrich and use data with a geospatial dimension with semantic web technologies. In: Proceedings of the fourth international ACM workshop on managing and mining enriched geo-spatial data, ACM, p 1
14.
Debruyne C, Meehan A, Clinton É, McNerney L, Nautiyal A, Lavin P, O’Sullivan D (2017) Ireland’s authoritative geospatial linked data. In: International semantic web conference, Springer, pp 66–74
15.
Do HH, Rahm E (2002) Coma: a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on very large data bases, VLDB endowment, pp 610–621
16.
Eren H (2016) 8 standards in process control and automation. In: Liptak BG, Eren H (eds) Instrument engineers’ handbook, volume 3: process software and digital networks, vol 3. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 155
17.
ESRI E (1998) Shapefile technical description. An ESRI white paper
18.
Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2007) Ontology matching. Springer, BerlinMATH
19.
Gao S, Sperberg-McQueen CM, Thompson HS, Mendelsohn N, Beech D, Maloney M (2009) W3C XML schema definition language (XSD) 1.1 part 1: structures. W3C Candidate Recomm 30(7.2):16
20.
Goodchild MF, Hunter GJ (1997) A simple positional accuracy measure for linear features. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 11(3):299–306CrossRef
21.
Grantner E (2007) ISO 8000: a standard for data quality. Logist Spectr 41(4):4–6
22.
Guo H, Song GF, Ma L, Wang SH (2009) Design and implementation of address geocoding system. Comput Eng 35(1):250–251
23.
Hartig O, Zhao J (2009) Using web data provenance for quality assessment. CEUR workshop proceedings
24.
Hillner S, Ngomo ACN (2011) Parallelizing limes for large-scale link discovery. In: 7th international conference on semantic systems, ACM, pp 9–16
25.
Homburg T, Prudhomme C, Würriehausen F, Karmacharya A, Boochs F, Roxin A, Cruz C (2016) Interpreting heterogeneous geospatial data using semantic web technologies. In: International conference on computational science and its applications, Springer, pp 240–255
26.
Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ (1993) Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 15(9):850–863CrossRef
27.
Jiménez-Ruiz E, Grau BC (2011) Logmap: logic-based and scalable ontology matching. In: International semantic web conference, Springer, pp 273–288
28.
Jiménez-Ruiz E, Kharlamov E, Zheleznyakov D, Horrocks I, Pinkel C, Skjæveland MG, Thorstensen E, Mora J (2015) Bootox: practical mapping of RDBS to OWL 2. In: International semantic web conference, Springer, pp 113–132
29.
Kainz W (1995) Logical consistency. Elem Spat Data Qual 202:109–137CrossRef
30.
Kalemi E, Martiri E (2011) FOAF-academic ontology: a vocabulary for the academic community. In: 2011 third international conference on intelligent networking and collaborative systems (INCoS), IEEE, pp 440–445
31.
32.
Le Grange JJ, Lehmann J, Athanasiou S, Garcia-Rojas A, Giannopoulos G, Hladky D, Isele R, Ngomo ACN, Sherif MA, Stadler C, et al (2014) The geoknow generator: managing geospatial data in the linked data web. In: Linking geospatial data
33.
34.
Levenshtein VI (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Phys Dokl 10:707–710MathSciNet
35.
Manning C, Surdeanu M, Bauer J, Finkel J, Bethard S, McClosky D (2014) The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstrations, pp 55–60
36.
Melnik S, Garcia-Molina H, Rahm E (2002) Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In: 18th international conference on data engineering, 2002. Proceedings, IEEE, pp 117–128
37.
Miller GA (1995) Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun ACM 38(11):39–41CrossRef
38.
Navigli R, Ponzetto SP (2010) BabelNet: building a very large multilingual semantic network. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Association for computational linguistics, pp 216–225
39.
Nentwig M, Hartung M, Ngonga Ngomo AC, Rahm E (2017) A survey of current link discovery frameworks. Semant Web 8(3):419–436CrossRef
40.
Ngomo ACN, Auer S (2011) Limes-a time-efficient approach for large-scale link discovery on the web of data. In: IJCAI, pp 2312–2317
41.
Niu X, Rong S, Zhang Y, Wang H (2011) Zhishi.links results for OAEI 2011. In: Ontology matching, vol 220
42.
Niwattanakul S, Singthongchai J, Naenudorn E, Wanapu S (2013) Using of Jaccard coefficient for keywords similarity. In: Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, vol 1
43.
OGC (2011) OGC geosparql—a geographic query language for RDF data. Technical report
44.
Otero-Cerdeira L, Rodríguez-Martínez FJ, Gómez-Rodríguez A (2015) Ontology matching: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 42(2):949–971CrossRef
45.
Pan JZ (2009) Resource description framework. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 71–90CrossRef
46.
Patroumpas K, Alexakis M, Giannopoulos G, Athanasiou S (2014) Triplegeo: an ETL tool for transforming geospatial data into RDF triples. In: ICDT workshops, pp 275–278
47.
Pinkel C, Binnig C, Jiménez-Ruiz E, Kharlamov E, May W, Nikolov A, Sasa Bastinos A, Skjæveland MG, Solimando A, Taheriyan M et al (2016) RODI: benchmarking relational-to-ontology mapping generation quality. Semant Web 9(1):25–52CrossRef
48.
Pinkel C, Binnig C, Jimenez-Ruiz E, Kharlamov E, Nikolov A, Schwarte A, Heupel C, Kraska T (2017) IncMap: a journey towards ontology-based data integration. In: Mitschang B, Nicklas D, Leymann F, Schöning H, Herschel M, Teubner J, Härder T, Kopp O, Wieland M (eds) Datenbanksysteme für Business, Technologie und Web (BTW 2017). Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn
49.
Prudhomme C, Homburg T, Ponciano JJ, Boochs F, Roxin A, Cruz C (2017) Automatic integration of spatial data into the semantic web. In: WebIST 2017
50.
51.
Rahm E, Bernstein PA (2001) A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J 10(4):334–350MATHCrossRef
52.
Repici J (2010) The comma separated value (CSV) file format. Creativyst Inc, San Carlos
53.
54.
Rijgersberg H, van Assem M, Top J (2013) Ontology of units of measure and related concepts. Semant Web 4(1):3–13CrossRef
55.
Scharffe F, Atemezing G, Troncy R, Gandon F, Villata S, Bucher B, Hamdi F, Bihanic L, Képéklian G, Cotton F, et al (2012) Enabling linked-data publication with the datalift platform. In: Proceedings of AAAI workshop on semantic cities
56.
Schwering A (2008) Approaches to semantic similarity measurement for geo-spatial data: a survey. Trans GIS 12(1):5–29CrossRef
57.
Shvaiko P, Euzenat J (2013) Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(1):158–176CrossRef
58.
Stadler C, Unbehauen J, Lehmann J, Auer S (2013) Connecting crowdsourced spatial information to the data web with sparqlify. Technical report, University of Leipzig
59.
Svennerberg, G (2010) Beginning Google Maps API 3. Apress
60.
Tarasowa D, Lange C, Auer S (2015) Measuring the quality of relational-to-RDF mappings. In: International conference on knowledge engineering and the semantic web, Springer, pp 210–224
61.
van Rees E (2013) Open geospatial consortium (OGC). Geoinformatics 16(8):28
62.
Veltkamp RC (2001) Shape matching: similarity measures and algorithms. In: SMI 2001 international conference on shape modeling and applications, IEEE, pp 188–197
63.
64.
Volz J, Bizer C, Gaedke M, Kobilarov G (2009) Silk-a link discovery framework for the web of data. In: LDOW, vol 538
65.
Vrandečić D, Krötzsch M (2014) Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun ACM 57(10):78–85CrossRef
66.
Vretanos PA (2005) Web feature service implementation specification. Open Geospatial Consort Specif 1325:04–094
67.
68.
Zaveri A, Rula A, Maurino A, Pietrobon R, Lehmann J, Auer S (2016) Quality assessment for linked data: a survey. Semant Web 7(1):63–93CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Interpretation and automatic integration of geospatial data into the Semantic Web
Towards a process of automatic geospatial data interpretation, classification and integration using semantic technologies
verfasst von
Claire Prudhomme
Timo Homburg
Jean-Jacques Ponciano
Frank Boochs
Christophe Cruz
Ana-Maria Roxin
Publikationsdatum
13.02.2019
Verlag
Springer Vienna
Erschienen in
Computing / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0010-485X
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-5057
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-019-00701-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Computing 2/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial

Preface: Springer computing journal

OriginalPaper

How does serendipity affect diversity in recommender systems? A serendipity-oriented greedy algorithm

OriginalPaper

Automatic hate speech detection using killer natural language processing optimizing ensemble deep learning approach

OriginalPaper

Data quality and the Internet of Things

OriginalPaper

A neighbour scale fixed approach for influence maximization in social networks

OriginalPaper

Method, formalization, and algorithms to split topology models for distributed cloud application deployments