Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 429–441 | Cite as

Linked Geoscience Data in practice: where W3C standards meet domain knowledge, data visualization and OGC standards

Research Article

Abstract

The geoscience community is now facing both the challenge and the opportunity caused by the vast amount of datasets that can be made available on the Web. An efficient “data environment” on the Web has the potential to enable geoscientists to conduct their research in ways that never existed before. Standards developed by the Open Geospatial Consortium have already been used widely to build data services among different subjects in geosciences. In recent years, the Linked Open Data approach initiated by the World Wide Web Consortium has received increasing attention. In this paper, the author presents a pilot study that uses a domain specific knowledge base and data visualization techniques to leverage the functionality of geoscience data services in the Web of Data. The study focuses on the topic of the geologic time scale. Detailed works such as semantic modeling and encoding, multilingual vocabularies, exploratory data visualization, web map service and processing, and the query of linked data are introduced through real-world datasets. This study faces a broad perspective of the Linked Geoscience Data and leverages the functionalities of existing standards into a new level for geoscience applications.

Keywords

Web of Data Geospatial data service Vocabulary Ontology Data visualization 

References

  1. Berg-Cross G, Cruz I, Dean M, Finin T, Gahegan M, Hitzler P, Hua H, Janowicz K, Li N, Murphy P, Nordgren B, Obrst L, Schildhauer M, Sheth A, Sinha K, Thessen A, Wiegand N, Zaslavsky I (2012) Semantics and Ontologies for EarthCube. In: Janowicz K, Kessler C, Kauppinen T, Kolas D, Scheider S (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on GIScience in the Big Data Age 2012, Columbus, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  2. Berners-Lee T (2006). Linked Data http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2016
  3. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila OT (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein A, Hendler J, Noy N (2016) A new look at the semantic web. Commun ACM 59(9):35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bizer C, Lehmann J, Kobilarov G, Auer S, Becker C, Cyganiak R, Hellmann S (2009) DBpedia-A crystallization point for the web of data. Web Semant 7(3):154–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blower JD, Riechert M (2016) Coverages, JSON-LD and RDF data cubes. In: Janowicz K, Lieberman J, Taylor K, Mckenzie G, Gao S, Cox S, Parsons E (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on spatial data on the web (SDW 2016), Montreal, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  7. CODATA (2016). Coordinating Data Standards amongst Scientific Unions http://www.codata.org/task-groups/coordinating-data-standards. Accessed 24 March 2017
  8. Cox SJD (2016) Time ontology extended for non-Gregorian calendar applications. Semant Web 7(2):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Cox SJD, Richard SM (2015) A geologic timescale ontology and service. Earth Sci Inf 8(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DDI Alliance (2016). Why use DDI? http://www.ddialliance.org/training/why-use-ddi. Accessed 19 Dec 2016
  12. Greiner A, Issac A, Iglesias C, Laufer C, Gueret C, Lee D, Schepers D, Stephan EG, Kauz E, Atemezing GA, Beeman H, Bittencourt II, Almeida JP, Dekkers M, Winstanley P, Archer P, Albertoni R, Purohit S, Cordova Y. (eds.) (2017). Data on the Web Best Practices https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/. Accessed 16 March 2017
  13. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(5):907–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (2015) ISO 19109:2015 geographic information -- rules for application schema. International Organization for standardization, Geneva, 91 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Janowicz K, Schade S, Bröring A, Keßler C, Maué P, Stasch C (2010) Semantic enablement for spatial data infrastructures. Trans GIS 14(2):111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janowicz K, Bröring A, Stasch C, Schade S, Everding T, Llaves A (2013) A restful proxy and data model for linked sensor data. Int J Digital Earth 6(3):233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janowicz K, van Harmelen F, Hendler JA, Hitzler P (2015) Why the data train needs semantic rails. AI Mag 36(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klug H, Kmoch A (2014) A SMART groundwater portal: an OGC web services orchestration framework for hydrology to improve data access and visualisation in New Zealand. Comput Geosci 69:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krisnadhi AA, Hu Y, Janowicz K, Hitzler P, Arko R, Carbotte S, Chandler C, Cheatham M, Fils D, Finin T, Ji P, Jones M, Karima N, Mickle A, Narock T, O’Brien M, Raymond L, Shepherd A, Schildhauer M, Wiebe P (2015) The GeoLink modular oceanography ontology. In: Arenas M, Corcho O, Simperl E, Strohmaier M, d'Aquin M, Srinivas K, Groth P, Dumontier M, Heflin J, Thirunarayan K, Staab S (eds) Proceedings of ISWC2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 9367. Springer, Berlin, pp 301–309Google Scholar
  20. Lacasta J, Nogueras-Iso J, Béjar R, Muro-Medrano PR, Zarazaga-Soria FJ (2007) A web ontology service to facilitate interoperability within a spatial data infrastructure: applicability to discovery. Data Knowl Eng 63(3):947–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laxton J, Serrano JJ, Tellez-Arenas A (2010) Geological applications using geospatial standards–an example from OneGeology-Europe and GeoSciML. Int J Digital Earth 3(S1):31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leadbetter AM (2015) Linked Ocean data. In: Narock T, Fox P (eds) The semantic web in Earth and space science: current Status and future Directions. IOS Press, Berlin, pp 11–31Google Scholar
  23. Leadbetter AM, Lowry RK, Clements DO (2013) Putting meaning into NETMAR - the open service network for marine environmental data. Int J Digital Earth 7(10):811–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loudon TV, Laxton JL (2007) Steps toward grid-based geological survey: suggestions for a systems framework of models, ontologies, and workflows. Geosphere 3(5):319–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lutz M, Sprado J, Klien E, Schubert C, Christ I (2009) Overcoming semantic heterogeneity in spatial data infrastructures. Comput Geosci 35(4):739–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma X, Fox P (2013) Recent progress on geologic time ontologies and considerations for future works. Earth Sci Inf 6(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma X, Fox P (2014) A jigsaw puzzle layer cake of spatial data. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 95(19):161–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma X, Wu C, Carranza EJM, Schetselaar EM, van der Meer FD, Liu G, Wang X, Zhang X (2010) Development of a controlled vocabulary for semantic interoperability of mineral exploration geodata for mining projects. Comput Geosci 36(12):1512–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma X, Carranza EJM, Wu C, van der Meer FD, Liu G (2011) A SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale for interoperability of online geological maps. Comput Geosci 37(10):1602–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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(3):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma X, Fox P, Tilmes C, Jacobs K, Waple A (2014) Capturing and presenting provenance of global change information. Nat Clim Chang 4(6):409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma X, Chen Y, Wang H, Zheng JG, Fu L, West P, Erickson JS, Fox P (2015) Data visualization in the semantic web. In: Narock T, Fox P (eds) The semantic web in Earth and space science: current Status and future Directions. IOS Press, Berlin, pp 149–167Google Scholar
  33. Ma X, Erickson JS, Zednik S, West P, Fox P (2016) Semantic specification of data types for a world of open data. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 5(3). doi:10.3390/ijgi5030038
  34. McKee L (2016). OGC’s future and mine as an OGC member http://www.opengeospatial.org/blog/2407. Accessed 23 March 2017
  35. Narock T, Fox P (eds) (2015) The semantic web in Earth and space science: current Status and future Directions. IOS Press, Berlin, 210 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramachandran R, Rushing J, Li X, Kamath C, Conover H, Graves S (2006) Bird's-eye view of data mining in geosciences. In: Sinha AK (ed) Geoinformatics: data to knowledge, Geological Society of America special papers, 397. The Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp 235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raskin R, Pan MJ (2005) Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Comput Geosci 31:1119–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reitsma F, Albrecht J (2005) Modeling with the semantic web in the geosciences. IEEE Intell Syst 20(2):86–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richard SM, Matti J, Soller DR (2003) Geoscience terminology development for the national geologic map database. In: Soller DR (ed) Digital mapping techniques '03—Workshop Proceedings, Millersville, pp 157–167Google Scholar
  40. Riechert, M., Blower, J., Griffiths, G., 2016. Exposing coverage data to the semantic web within the MELODIES project: challenges and solutions. In EGU general assembly conference abstracts (Vol. 18, 16923).Google Scholar
  41. Schade S, Granell C, Díaz L (2010) Augmenting SDI with linked data. In: Janowicz K, Pehle T, Hart G, Maue P (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on linked spatiotemporal data 2010, Zurich, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Stadler C, Lehmann J, Höffner K, Auer S (2012) LinkedGeoData: a core for a web of spatial open data. Semant Web 3(4):333–354Google Scholar
  43. Tandy J, Barnaghi P, van den Brink L (eds.) (2017) Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp. Accessed 07 Jan 2017
  44. Taylor K, Parsons E (2015) Where is everywhere: bringing location to the web. IEEE Internet Comput 19(2):83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tripathi A, Babaie HA (2008) Developing a modular hydrogeology ontology by extending the SWEET upper-level ontologies. Comput Geosci 34(9):1022–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Usery EL, Varanka D (2012) Design and development of linked data from the national map. Semant Web 3(4):371–384Google Scholar
  47. Vaccari L, Shvaiko P, Marchese M (2009) A geo-service semantic integration in spatial data infrastructures. Int J Spat Data Infrastruct Res 4:24–51Google Scholar
  48. Wiemann S (2017) Formalization and web-based implementation of spatial data fusion. Comput Geosci 99:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiemann S, Bernard L (2016) Spatial data fusion in spatial data infrastructures using linked data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 30(4):613–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang C, Raskin R, Goodchild M, Gahegan M (2010) Geospatial cyberinfrastructure: past, present and future. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34(4):264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. You J (2015) Geoscientists aim to magnify specialized web searching. Science 347(6217):11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yue P, Di L, Yang W, Yu G, Zhao P (2007) Semantics-based automatic composition of geospatial web service chains. Comput Geosci 33(5):649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhao P, Di L, Yu G, Yue P, Wei Y, Yang W (2009) Semantic web-based geospatial knowledge transformation. Comput Geosci 35(4):798–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhao P, Foerster T, Yue P (2012) The geoprocessing web. Comput Geosci 47:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zheng JG, Fu L, Ma X, Fox P (2015) SEM+: tool for discovering concept mapping in Earth science related domain. Earth Sci Inf 8(1):95–102Google Scholar
  56. Zhong J, Aydin A, McGuinness DL (2009) Ontology of fractures. J Struct Geol 31:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations