Elsevier

Computers & Geosciences

Volume 40, March 2012, Pages 107-119
Computers & Geosciences

Ontology-aided annotation, visualization, and generalization of geological time-scale information from online geological map services

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.07.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Geological maps are increasingly published and shared online, whereas tools and services supporting information retrieval and knowledge discovery are underdeveloped. In this study, we developed an ontology of geological time scale by using a Resource Description Framework model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of the geological time scale and to encode collected annotations of geological time scale concepts. We also developed an animated graphical view of the developed ontology, and functions for interactions between the ontology, the animation and online geological maps published as layers of OGC Web Map Service. The featured functions include automatic annotations for geological time concepts recognized from a geological map, changing layouts in the animation to highlight a concept, showing legends of geological time contents in an online map with the animation, and filtering out and generalizing geological time features in an online map by operating the map legend shown in the animation. We set up a pilot system and carried out a user survey to test and evaluate the usability and usefulness of the developed ontology, animation and interactive functions. Results of the pilot system and the user survey demonstrate that our works enhance features of online geological map services and they are helpful for users to understand and to explore geological time contents and features, respectively, of a geological map.

Highlights

► Use proper datatype and object properties to represent a subject domain in geoscience. ► Ontology-based annotation and visualization functions for online geological maps. ► Ontology-based interactive functions to help users to access online geological maps. ► Show a novel way of using ontologies to improve geological data interoperability.

Introduction

Cyber-infrastructure enables faster and easier creation, storage, and transfer of data, yet services facilitating efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery are still underdeveloped (Hey and Trefethen, 2005, Stafford, 2010). In the field of geology, it has been extensively discussed that a geoscience cyber environment includes not only digitized geological data but also expertise and tools that support the transformation of data into knowledge (Brodaric and Gahegan, 2006, Howard et al., 2009, Loudon, 2009, McGuinness et al., 2009). Such expertise and tools are useful for studies of geology within a cyber environment and, more importantly, they provide support for addressing geology-related societal challenges, such as resources exploration, urban development and hazards mitigation, in the context of the cyber-infrastructure (Broome, 2005, OneGeology-Europe Consortium, 2010, Sinha et al., 2010).

Ontologies, as shared conceptualizations of domain knowledge (Gruber, 1995, Guarino, 1997), can help to improve the interoperability of geological data and facilitate the transformation of geological data into geological knowledge in the cyber-infrastructure (Brodaric and Gahegan, 2006, Galton, 2009, Loudon, 2000, Reitsma et al., 2009). There are several forms of geological ontology with varying semantic richness (i.e., precision of meanings of concepts and relationships between concepts). Following a general direction from informal to formal semantics, geological ontologies include controlled vocabularies (e.g., Bibby, 2006, Ma et al., 2010, Richard and Soller, 2008), conceptual schemas (e.g., Brodaric, 2004, NADM Steering Committee, 2004, Richard, 2006) and RDF1 /OWL2 -based ontologies (e.g., Ludäscher et al., 2003, Raskin and Pan, 2005, Tripathi and Babaie, 2008), etc.

In several recent projects, ontologies have been applied to provide featured functions in geospatial data infrastructures, thereby promoting geological data and tools that support information retrieval and knowledge discovery. In the GEON project,3 ontologies were used to mediate conceptual schemas of heterogeneous geological maps and enable semantic integration (Baru et al., 2009, Ludäscher et al., 2003). The AuScope project4 built vocabulary-based services for querying geological maps, which overcame differences in geoscience terms due to language, spelling, synonyms, and local variations and, thus, helped users to find desired information (Woodcock et al., 2010). The OneGeology (1G) project5 promoted the GeoSciML (Sen and Duffy, 2005) as a common conceptual schema, which improved the interoperability of online geological maps distributed globally (Jackson, 2007). GeoSciML was also applied in the OneGeology-Europe (1G-E) project6 and, compared to the 1G, the 1G-E extended vocabulary-based services and enabled multilingual annotation and translation of geological map contents among 18 Europeans languages (Laxton et al., 2010).

Through these projects, substantial developments have been made in conceptualizing geological knowledge into ontologies and using defined ontologies to mediate and/or integrate heterogeneous geological data. However, services using ontologies to support the interpretation of geological data are still underdeveloped. Provision of those services is necessary, nevertheless, because they are vital for comprehending the usability (i.e., as an essential part of interoperability (Bishr, 1998; Harvey et al., 1999)) of geological data served in a data infrastructure. Services using ontologies enable users, especially those who are not familiar with geology, not only to find desired data but also to understand and use the data appropriately (cf. Bond et al., 2007, Broome, 2005, Gahegan et al., 2009).

In the present study, an ontology of geological time scale is applied to support annotation, visualization, filtration, and generalization of geological time scale (GTS) information from online geological map services. The present study aimed to (1) show methods of using proper datatype and object properties to represent the structure of a domain (i.e., GTS) in geosciences; (2) develop functions of ontology-based annotation and visualization to help users to understand GTS contents of online geological maps; (3) develop ontology-based interactive functions to help users retrieve GTS information and discover GTS knowledge in online geological maps; and, as a whole, (4) show a novel way of using ontologies to improve geological data interoperability and facilitate geological knowledge discovery in the context of the Semantic Web.

Section snippets

Incorporating annotations in a geological time scale ontology

We developed the GTS ontology with a Resource Description Framework (RDF) model (Fig. 1a). Properties used in the ontology are of two sorts: datatype properties and object properties. The former are used to define differentiating qualities of concepts (Fig. 1b) and the latter are used to define relationships between concepts (Fig. 1c). We referred to the GTS thesauri and ontologies developed in the GeoSciML project (Cox and Richard, 2005), the SWEET project (Raskin and Pan, 2005), and the

Interactions between GTS ontology, GTS animation, and online geological map services

An essential feature of ontologies is their ability of using semantic inferences (i.e., logical reasoning operations using definitions of concepts and relationships between concepts) to reach conclusions and reveal new information (Katifori et al., 2007). Incorporating functions of semantic inference into visualized ontologies has been increasingly studied in recent years, leading to novel features in vast applications. The OZONE (Suh and Bederson, 2002) visualizes query conditions and provides

Pilot system, results and evaluation

We set up a pilot system to test and evaluate the usability and usefulness of the aforementioned works. In the pilot system, we linked to a WMS server12 provided by the British Geological Survey (BGS), from which we retrieved the 1:625,000 scale onshore bedrock age map of the United Kingdom (625k UKBRA) and showed it in a map window (left part of Fig. 9) in a user interface. The system gets the GTS

Discussion

The GTS ontology developed in this study shares the same basic reference (i.e., the International Stratigraphic Chart) with the geological time vocabularies/ontologies developed in the GeoSciML, SWEET, and CHRONOS projects. Compared to the vocabularies/ontologies in those projects, the GTS ontology in this study is simplified. This is because one primary purpose of the developed GTS ontology is to provide annotations to GTS concepts/terms in geological maps. We applied a GTS term-oriented point

Conclusions

Geospatial data infrastructures have been widely used in publication and sharing of geological maps, whereas tools and services for information retrieval and knowledge discovery are underdeveloped compared to the massive geological data available online. In this study we developed a RDF-based ontology of geological time scale, an animation based on this ontology, and interactive functions among the ontology, the animation and online geological map services. We built a pilot system with the

Acknowledgments

We thank staff members in the ESA and GIP departments of Faculty ITC at the University of Twente for their comments on an earlier pilot system. In particular, the first author thanks Mr. Dongpo Deng for discussing applications of ontologies and Barend Köbben for discussing techniques of programming with JavaScript. We are grateful to Dr. Simon Cox and another anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments and suggestions which led to the improvements in the manuscript.

References (88)

  • A. Hubaux

    A new geological tool—the data

    Earth-Science Reviews

    (1973)
  • S. Krivov et al.

    GrOWL: A tool for visualization and editing of OWL ontologies

    Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web

    (2007)
  • M. Kulawiak et al.

    Interactive visualization of marine pollution monitoring and forecasting data via a Web-based GIS

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2010)
  • L. Kulik et al.

    Ontology-driven map generalization

    Journal of Visual Languages and Computing

    (2005)
  • S. Lehmann et al.

    Interactive visualization for opportunistic exploration of large document collections

    Information Systems

    (2010)
  • T. Liebig et al.

    OntoTrack: a semantic approach for ontology authoring

    Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web

    (2005)
  • T.V. Loudon

    Geoscience after IT: Part L Adjusting the emerging information system to new technology

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2000)
  • T.V. Loudon

    Four interacting aspects of a geological survey knowledge system

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2009)
  • L.I. Lumb et al.

    Annotation modeling with formal ontologies: implications for informal ontologies

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2009)
  • P. Lüscher et al.

    Integrating ontological modelling and Bayesian inference for pattern classification in topographic vector data

    Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

    (2009)
  • X. Ma et al.

    Development of a controlled vocabulary for semantic interoperability of mineral exploration geodata for mining projects

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2010)
  • J. Michalak

    Topological conceptual model of geological relative time scale for geoinformation systems

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2005)
  • R.G. Raskin et al.

    Knowledge representation in the semantic web for earth and environmental terminology (SWEET)

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2005)
  • F. Reitsma

    Geoscience explanations: identifying what is needed for generating scientific narratives from data models

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • F. Reitsma et al.

    Semantics, ontologies and eScience for the geosciences

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2009)
  • N.M.S. Rock

    Progress in 1988–1990 with computer applications in the “hard-rock” arena: geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, and Volcanology

    Computers & Geosciences

    (1991)
  • M. Sen et al.

    GeoSciML: development of a generic GeoScience Markup Language

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2005)
  • A. Tripathi et al.

    Developing a modular hydrogeology ontology by extending the SWEET upper-level ontologies

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2008)
  • U. Visser et al.

    Ontologies for geographic information processing

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2002)
  • J.M. Ware et al.

    A knowledge based genetic algorithm approach to automating cartographic generalisation

    Knowledge-Based Systems

    (2003)
  • C. Youn et al.

    Web-based simulating system for modeling earthquake seismic wavefields on the grid

    Computers & Geosciences

    (2008)
  • Asch, K., Laxton, J., Bavec, M., Bergman, S., Perez Cerdan, F., Declercq, P.Y., Janjou, D., Kacer, S., Klicker, M.,...
  • C. Baru et al.

    The GEON service-oriented architecture for Earth Science applications

    International Journal of Digital Earth

    (2009)
  • L. Bibby

    Establishing vocabularies for the exchange of geological map data? how to herd stray cats

    ASEG Extended Abstracts

    (2006)
  • Y. Bishr

    Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability

    International Journal of Geographical Information Science

    (1998)
  • C.E. Bond et al.

    Knowledge transfer in a digital world: field data acquisition, uncertainty, visualization, and data management

    Geosphere

    (2007)
  • B. Brodaric et al.

    Representing geoscientific knowledge in cyberinfrastructure: challenges, approaches and implementations

  • J. Broome

    The future of geoscience in the 21st century: art, science, or resource?

  • E. Camon et al.

    The Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA) project: implementation of GO in SWISS-PROT, TrEMBL, and InterPro

    Genome Research

    (2003)
  • S.J.D. Cox et al.

    A formal model for the geologic time scale and global stratotype section and point, compatible with geospatial information transfer standards

    Geosphere

    (2005)
  • M. D'Ambros et al.

    On porting software visualization tools to the web

    International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)

    (2010)
  • E. Dimmer et al.

    Methods for gene ontology annotation

  • D. Dupplaw et al.

    A distributed, service-based framework for knowledge applications with multimedia

    ACM Transactions on Information Systems

    (2009)
  • P. Elst et al.

    Communication between Flash and the browser

  • Cited by (41)

    • A comprehensive construction of the domain ontology for stratigraphy

      2023, Geoscience Frontiers
      Citation Excerpt :

      Among them, the construction and application of the ontologies of the Geologic Time Scale (GTS) and Chronostratigraphy have received considerable attention (see review of Ma and Fox, 2013; Ma et al., 2020). For instance, the ontology models of GTS and GSSPs have been constructed in various versions, e.g., models of UML (Unified Modeling Language), SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) or OWL (Web Ontology Language) (Cox and Richard, 2005, 2015; Raskin and Pan, 2005; Dong et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2011, 2012, 2020; Hou et al., 2015, 2018; Cox, 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Cox and Little, 2020). An interactive International Chronostratigraphic Chart is available by utilizing Time Ontology in OWL (https://stratigraphy.org/timescale/).

    • Named entity annotation schema for geological literature mining in the domain of porphyry copper deposits

      2023, Ore Geology Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      In comparison, an ontology model, with precise logic constraints and semantic specification, can drive the construction of named entity annotation schema that determines the named entity in the many disciplines of geosciences (Gruber, 1995; Wang et al., 2018a). A series of ontology models have been developed from different viewpoints of geoscience to construct the terminology ecosystems, such as SWEET (Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology) (Raskin and Pan, 2005), geologic time ontology (Cox and Richard, 2015, 2005; Ma et al., 2020, 2012; Wang et al., 2018a), mineral exploration ontology (Mentes, 2012), mineral resources ontology, petroleum ontology (Li et al., 2010), geological modeling (Perrin et al., 2005), geological structure (Babaie et al., 2006; Zhong et al., 2009), rock deformation (Babaie and Davarpanah, 2018), geological maps (Mantovani et al., 2020), geological hazard (Liu et al., 2010), geoscience networks (Ludäscher et al., 2003), and marine ontology (Rueda et al., 2009). Mineral deposit research is closely related to a list of geoscience disciplines and subjects, such as geological structure, petrology, geological timescale, geochronology, geochemistry, and mineralogy.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text