, 10:159 | Cite as

Metadata Community Profiles for the Semantic Web

  • Luis Bermudez
  • Michael PiaseckiEmail author


Metadata is needed to facilitate data sharing among geospatial information communities. Geographic Metadata Standards are available but tend to be general and complex in nature and also are not well suited to overcome semantic heterogeneities across vocabularies of different domains and user communities. Current formalizations of metadata standards are not flexible enough to allow reuse and extension of metadata specifications, in particular for Web based information systems. In order to address this problem we propose a methodology to create community specific metadata profiles for the Semantic Web by reusing metadata specifications and domain vocabularies encoded as resources for the Web. This ensures that these community profiles are semantically compatible so they can be used in Web based information systems. The ISO-19115:2003 geographic metadata standard is the most general standard available and is being used in conjunction with the Web Ontology Language as the expression medium to test the methodology for each one of the possible extensions documented in ISO-19115:2003. It is shown that it is possible to extend and reuse metadata specifications and vocabularies distributed in the Web using the Web Ontology Language, by utilizing the language's flexibility to create restrictions on inherit properties and to make interferences on web distributed resources. Examples from the area of Hydrology are provided to demonstrate the technical details of the approach.


Metadata Hydrology Ontology Semantic interoperability 


  1. 1.
    K. Baclawski, M. Kokar, P. Kogut, L. Hart, J. Smith, J. Letkowski, and P. Emery. “Extending the unified modeling language for ontology development,” Software System Model, 1:1–15, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Batini, S. Ceri, and S.B. Navathe. “Conceptual database design,” The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. “The semantic web,” Scientific American, Vol. 184(5):34–43, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Bishr. “Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability,” Geographic Information Science, Vol. 12(4):299–314, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CHRONOS. “An information system for chronostratigraphy,”, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CLEANER. “Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental Research,” in, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Commission on Geosciences Environment and Resource CGER. “A data foundation for the national spatial data infrastructure,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Cranefield. “UML and the semantic web,” in Semantic Web Working Symposium, California, USA, in, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    CUAHSI. Consortium for the Advancement of the Hydrologic Sciences, Inc., in, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DCMI. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, in, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ecoinformatics. “EML—Ecological Markup Language,” in, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.J. Egenhofer. “Toward the semantic geospatial web,” in Tenth ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, ACM Press: McLean, VA, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Elmargarmid and C. Pu. “Guest editors' introduction to the special issue on heterogenous databases,” ACM Computing Surveys, 22:175–178, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency, in, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    FGDC. “Content standard for digital geospatial metadata,” Washington, D.C., 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Gil and V. Ratnakar. “TRELLIS: an interactive tool for capturing information analysis and decision making,” in A. Gómez-Pérez and V. Richard Benjamins (Eds.), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web: 13th International Conference, EKAW 2002, Lecture in Computer Science, vol. 2473, pp. 37–42, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Siguenza, Spain, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Gruber. “A translation approach to portable ontology specification,” Knowledge Acquisition 5(2):199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Hadzilakos, G. Halaris, M. Kavouras, M. Kokla, G. Panapoulos, I. Paraschakis, T. Sellis, L. Tsoulos, and M. Zervakis. “Interoperability and definition of a national standard for geospatial data: the case of the hellenic cadastre,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observations and Geoinformation, Vol. 2(2):120–128, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Harvey, W. Kuhn, H. Pundt, and Y. Bishr. “Semantic interoperability: A central issue for sharing geographic information,” The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 33(2):213–232, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Helly, A.A.P. Koppers, and H. Staudigel. “Scalable models of data sharing in earth sciences,” Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst, Vol. 4(1):1010, doi:10.1029/2002GC000318, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Hendler. “XML and the Semantic Web XML,” Journal, October, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Hunter and C. Lagoze. “Combining RDF and XML schemas to enhance interoperability between metadata application profiles,” in The Tenth International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 457–466, ACM Press: Hong Kong, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    IRIS. Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, in, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A.K.M.S. Islam, L.E. Bermudez, and M. Piasecki. “Ontology for geographic information—Metadata (ISO 19115),” in, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO. “Geographic information—Metadata,” 2003.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D.R. Maidment. Arc hydro Gis for water resources. ESRI: California, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D.L. McGuinness. “Ontologies come of age.” Spinning the semantic Web. D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman and W. Wahlster. The MIT Press: London, England, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in, 2004.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    NOKIS. North and Baltic Sea Coastal Information System. 2004.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    OASIS., 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    OMG. “Meta-Object Facility MOF™,” version 1.4, in, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    OMG. “Unified modeling language specification,”, 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    OMG. Object Management Group, in, 2004.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A.P. Sheth. “Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: From system, syntax, structures to semantics,” in M.F Goodchild, M.J. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C. Cottman (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, 5–29, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Stocks and J. Quinn. “Data technologies: geospatial data integration,” in W. Michener and P. Tooby (Eds.), Scalable Information Networks for the Environment (SINE). Report of an NSF-Sponsored Workshop, 23–29, San Diego Supercomputer Center, 2002.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    USGS. “Hydrologic Markup Language (HYDROML),” in, 2004.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    USGS. US Geological Survey, in, 2004.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    W3C. “Extensible Markup Language (XML),” in, 2003.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    W3C. “Ontology Web Language (OWL),” in, 2004.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    W3C. “XML Linking Language(XLink),” in, 2004.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    W3C. “XML Path Language (XPath),”, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Architectural & Environmental EngineeringDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations