Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 31–46 | Cite as

Recent progress on geologic time ontologies and considerations for future works

Review Article

Abstract

Semantic Web technologies bring innovative ideas to computer applications in geoscience. As an essential part of the Semantic Web, ontologies are increasingly discussed in the geoscience community, in which geologic time scale is one of the topics that have received the most discussion and practices. This paper aims to carry out a review of the recent progress on geologic time ontologies, discuss further improvements, and make recommendations for other geoscience ontology works. Several models and ontologies of geologic time scale are collected and analyzed. Items such as ontology evaluation, ontology mapping, ontology governance, ontology delivery and multilingual labels are discussed for advancing the geologic time ontologies. We hope the discussion can be useful for other geoscience ontology works, and we also make a few further recommendations, such as referring to an ontology spectrum in ontology creation, collaborative working to improve interoperability, and balancing expressivity, implementability and maintainability to achieve better applications of ontologies.

Keywords

Modeling and encoding Ontology evolving and mapping Ontology governance Ontology delivery Collaborative work 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the two reviewers for their constructive comments which lead to the improvement of the manuscript. We also thank Mr. Jan Jellema, Dr. Kristine Asch, Dr. Simon Cox and Dr. Steve Richard for discussing recent works of geologic time ontologies.

References

  1. Allemang D, Hendler J (2011) Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison M, Gundersen LC, Richard SM, Dickinson TL (2008) Geosciences Information Network (GIN): a modular, distributed, interoperable data network for the geosciences. EOS Trans. AGU 89 (53):Abstract No. IN2013A-1073Google Scholar
  3. Asch K (2010) Semantic geological standard development: an international GeoScience Language workshop. Episodes 33(4):280Google Scholar
  4. Asch K, Laxton J, Bavec M, Bergman S, Perez Cerdan F, Declercq PY, Janjou D, Kacer S, Klicker M, Nironen M, Pantaloni M, Schubert C (2010) Explanatory Notes for the Vocabulary to Describe Spatial Geological Data in Europe at a 1 : 1 Million Scale—for the eContentPlus project OneGeology-Europe. http://onegeology-europe.brgm.fr/how_to201002/Expl_Notes%20WP_3_vocabulary.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2011
  5. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The Semantic Web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodaric B, Probst F (2009) Enabling cross-disciplinary e-science by integrating geoscience ontologies with DOLCE. IEEE Intell Syst 24(1):66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox SJD, Richard SM (2005) A formal model for the geologic time scale and global stratotype section and point, compatible with geospatial information transfer standards. Geosphere 1(3):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox SJ (2011) OWL representation of the geologic timescale implementing stratigraphic best practice. Abstract IN31B-1440 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding Y, Foo S (2002) Ontology research and development. Part 2—a review of ontology mapping and evolving. J Inform Sci 28(5):375–388Google Scholar
  10. Duce S, Janowicz K (2010) Microtheories for spatial data infrastructures—accounting for diversity of local conceptualizations at a global level. In: Fabrikant SI, Reichenbacher T, van Kreveld M, Schlieder C (eds) GIScience 2010, LNCS 6292. Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg, pp 27–41Google Scholar
  11. Ebner M, Schiegl M, Stöckl W, Schuster R, Janda C (2011) A SKOS based thesaurus of the Geological Survey of Austria exposed through an Open Linked DataWeb-Service. Geophysical Research Abstracts 13: Abstract No. EGU2011-6862Google Scholar
  12. Fox P, Hendler J (2009) Semantic eScience: encoding meaning in next-generation digitally enhanced science. In: Hey T, Tansley S, Tolle K (eds) The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft Research, Rednond, WA, pp 147–152Google Scholar
  13. Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Smith AG (eds) (2004) A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum-Comput St 43(5–6):907–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haq BU (ed) (2007) The Geological Time Table, 6th edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Hendler J (2003) Science and the Semantic Web. Science 299(5606):520–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (2002) ISO 19108: Geographic information—Temporal Schema. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Janowicz K, Hitzler P (2012) The digital earth as knowledge engine. Semantic Web 3(3):213–221Google Scholar
  19. Laxton J, Serrano J-J, Tellez-Arenas A (2010) Geological applications using geospatial standards—an example from OneGeology-Europe and GeoSciML. Int J Digit Earth 3(1):31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ma X, Asch K, Laxton JL, Richard SM, Asato CG, Carranza EJM, van der Meer FD, Wu C, Duclaux G, Wakita K (2011a) Data exchange facilitated. Nat Geosci 4(12):814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma X, Carranza EJM, Wu C, van der Meer FD (2012) Ontology-aided annotation, visualization, and generalization of geological time scale information from online geological map services. Comput Geosci 40:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma X, Carranza EJM, Wu C, van der Meer FD, Liu G (2011b) A SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale for interoperability of online geological maps. Comput Geosci 37(10):1602–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mascarelli AL (2009) Quaternary geologists win timescale vote. Nature 459:624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCusker JP, Luciano J, McGuinness DL (2011) Towards an ontology for conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, Buffalo, NY, pp 191–199Google Scholar
  25. McGuinness DL (2003) Ontologies come of age. In: Fensel D, Hendler J, Lieberman H, Wahlster W (eds) Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 171–196Google Scholar
  26. Michalak J (2005) Topological conceptual model of geological relative time scale for geoinformation systems. Comput Geosci 31(7):865–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NADM Steering Committee (2004) NADM Conceptual Model 1.0—A conceptual model for geologic map information: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004–1334. North American Geologic Map Data Model (NADM) Steering Committee, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  28. Noy NF, Klein M (2004) Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowl Inform Syst 6(4):428–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pavel S, Euzenat J (2012) Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2011.253
  30. Perrin M, Mastella L, Morel O, Lorenzatti A (2011) Geological time formalization: an improved formal model for describing time successions and their correlation. Earth Sci Inform 4(2):81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raskin RG, Pan MJ (2005) Knowledge representation in the semantic web for earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Comput Geosci 31(9):1119–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinha AK (2011) Infusing semantics into the knowledge discovery process for the new e-geoscience paradigm. In: Sinha AK, Arctur D, Jackson I, Gundersen L (eds) Societal Challenges and Geoinformatics; Geological Society of America Special Paper 482. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp 165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Uschold M, Gruninger M (2004) Ontologies and semantics for seamless con- nectivity. SIGMOD Rec 33(4):58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woodcock R, Simons B, Duclaux G, Cox S (2010) AuScope’s use of standards to deliver earth resource data. Geophys. Res. Abs. 12: Abstract No. EGU2010-1556Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tetherless World Constellation, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations