Applied Geomatics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 453–472 | Cite as

A brokered Virtual Hub approach for the generation of web applications based on historical maps

  • Mattia PrevitaliEmail author
  • Miguel Ángel Latre
Original Paper


Integration between historical maps and current cartography is nowadays recognized of primary importance in many applications (e.g. urban planning, landscape valorisation and preservation, land changes identification). However, due to large variety in Geographical Information (GI) standards and interfaces for data publishing, some technical issues arise for developers when integrating different data for the generation of new web-based applications. In addition, information overload makes difficult their discovery and management: without knowing the specific repository where the data are stored, it is difficult to find the information required. To partially cope with those problems, this paper describes a new brokering-based approach for the generation of web applications based on multi-temporal GI data gathered from different providers. In particular, this new approach is exemplified by a couple of new web applications built on top of the developed solution. Even if the two applications deal both with historical maps, they present significant differences in technical (e.g. libraries, development environment, data formats) and non-technical (e.g. user addressed, user requirements) aspects showing the flexibility of the solution.


Open data Brokering approach Interoperability Historical maps Web services 



The research leading to the results of this paper is partially funded under the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme by the European Community (CIP) GA no. 620400.


  1. Affek A (2013) Georeferencing of historical maps using GIS, as exemplified by the Austrian Military Surveys of Galicia. Geogr Pol 86(4):375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assante M, Candela L, Castelli D, Pagano P (2014) The D4Science research-oriented social networking facilities. ERCIM News 96:44–45Google Scholar
  3. Assante M, Candela L, Castelli D, Coro G, Lelii L, Pagano P (2016) Virtual research environments as-a-service by gCube. PeerJ Preprints, 4, e2511v1Google Scholar
  4. Balletti C (2006) Georeference in the analysis of the geometric content of early maps. ePerimetron 1(1):32–42Google Scholar
  5. Barazzetti L, Brumana R, Oreni D, Previtali M (2014) Historical map registration via independent model adjustment with affine transformations. In: International conference on computational science and its applications. Springer, Cham, pp. 44–56Google Scholar
  6. Barron C, Neis P, Zipf A (2014) A comprehensive framework for intrinsic OpenStreetMap quality analysis. Trans GIS 18(6):877–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Béjar R, Latre MÁ, Nogueras-Iso J, Muro-Medrano PR, Zarazaga-Soria FJ (2009) Systems of systems as a conceptual framework for spatial data infrastructures. IJSDIR 4:201–217Google Scholar
  8. Bigagli L, Santoro M, Mazzetti P, Nativi S (2015) Architecture of a process broker for interoperable geospatial modeling on the web. IJGI 4(2):647–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boldrini E, Papeschi F, Santoro M, Nativi S (2015) Enabling interoperability in geoscience with GI-suite. In: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 17)Google Scholar
  10. Bonham-Carter GF (2014) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modelling with GIS (Vol. 13). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  11. Bottou L, Haffner P, Howard PG, Simard P, Bengio Y, Le Cun Y (1998) High quality document image compression with DjVu. J Electron Imaging 7(3):410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brovelli MA, Minghini M (2012) Georeferencing old maps: a polynomial-based approach for Como historical cadastres. e-Perimetron 7(3):97–110Google Scholar
  13. Candela L, Pagano P (2015) Cross-disciplinary data sharing and reuse via gCube. In ERCIM NEWS, issue 100, January 2015
  14. Candela L, Castelli D, Coro G, Lelii L, Mangiacrapa F, Marioli V, Pagano P (2015) An infrastructure-oriented approach for supporting biodiversity research. Ecol Inform 26:162–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cerreta M, Mele R (2012) A landscape complex values map: integration among soft values and hard values in a spatial decision support system. In: International conference on computational science and its applications. Springer, Berlin, pp. 653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denzer R, Schlobinski S, Boot G, Keppel F, de Rooij E (2014) An information platform fostering re-use of water data. In: International congress on environmental modelling and software (2014), ISBN: 978-88-9035-744-2
  17. Dihé P, Denzer R, Schlobinski S (2015) An information model for a water information platform. In: ISESS. Infrastructures, services and applications. ISESS 2015. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 448. Springer, pp. 91–101Google Scholar
  18. Fielding RT (2000) Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures, University of California, Irvine, 2000Google Scholar
  19. Fielding RT, Taylor RN (2002) Principled design of the modern web architecture. TOIT 2(2):115–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giuliani G, Nativi S, Obregon A, Beniston M, Lehmann A (2017) Spatially enabling the global framework for climate services: reviewing geospatial solutions to efficiently share and integrate climate data & information. Climate ServicesGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodchild M, Egenhofer MJ, Fegeas R, Kottman C (eds) (2012) Interoperating geographic information systems (Vol. 495). Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  22. Grabowski RC, Gurnell AM (2016) Using historical data in fluvial geomorphology. In: Tools in fluvial geomorphology, pp 56–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grosso E (2010) Integration of historical geographic data into current geo-referenced frameworks: a user-centered approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Digital Approaches in Cartographic Heritage (Vienna 2010) (pp. 107–117)Google Scholar
  24. Guerra F (2000) 2W: new technologies for the georeferenced visualisation of historic cartography. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens 33(B5/1; PART 5):339–346Google Scholar
  25. Guigoz Y (2016) Spatial data infrastructures for addressing environmental challenges: stocktaking, capacity building, implementation and assessment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva)Google Scholar
  26. Haklay M (2010) How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and ordnance survey datasets. Environ Plan B Plan Des 37(4):682–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hell, T., Kohlhas, E., Schlobinski, S., Denzer, R., Güttler, R., 2013. An information system supporting WFD reporting. In: International Symposium on Environmental Software Systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 403-413Google Scholar
  28. Jenny B (2010) New features in MapAnalyst, e-Perimetron, 5, pp. 176–180Google Scholar
  29. Lassoued Y (2012) D4. 4.2–Implementation of the Semantic Framework–Version 2. NETMAR ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  30. Leadbetter AM, Lowry RK, Clements DO (2014) Putting meaning into NETMAR–the open service network for marine environmental data. Int J Digital Earth 7(10):811–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mazzetti P, Latre MÁ, Bauer M, Brumana R, Brauman S, Nativi S (2015) ENERGIC-OD Virtual Hubs: a brokered architecture for facilitating Open Data sharing and use. eChallenges e-2015 Conference, Vilnius (Lithuania), 25-26 November 2015Google Scholar
  32. Nativi S, Craglia M, Pearlman J (2012) The brokering approach for multidisciplinary interoperability: a position paper. IJSDIR 7:1–15Google Scholar
  33. Nativi S, Craglia M, Pearlman J (2013) Earth science infrastructures interoperability: the brokering approach. J-STARS 6(3):1118–1129Google Scholar
  34. Nativi S, Mazzetti P, Craglia M, Pirrone N (2014) The GEOSS solution for enabling data interoperability and integrative research. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21(6):4177–4192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nativi S, Mazzetti P, Santoro M, Papeschi F, Craglia M, Ochiai O (2015) Big data challenges in building the global earth observation system of systems. Environ Modell Softw 68:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ortiz S Jr (2007) Getting on board the enterprise service bus. Computer 40(4):15–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Podobnikar T (2009) Georeferencing and quality assessment of Josephine survey maps for the mountainous region in the Triglav National Park. Acta Geod Geophys Hu 44(1):49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Regueiro MA, Viqueira JR, Taboada JA, Cotos JM (2015) Virtual integration of sensor observation data. Comput Geosci 81:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt MT, Hutchison B, Lambros P, Phippen R (2005) The enterprise service bus: making service-oriented architecture real. IBM Syst J 44(4):781–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shahand S, Benabdelkader A, Jaghoori MM, Mourabit MA, Huguet J, Caan MW et al (2015) A data-centric neuroscience gateway: design, implementation, and experiences. Concurr Comp-Pract E 27(2):489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Southall H (2014) Applying historical GIS beyond the academy: four use cases for the Great Britain HGIS. In Toward spatial humanities: historical GIS and spatial history. Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Torres-Bejarano F, Denzer R, Ramírez H, Hell T, Frysinger S, Schlobinski S, Güttler R (2011) Development and integration of a numerical water quality model with the geospatial application suite CIDs. MODSIM 2011-19th International congress on modelling and simulation - sustaining our future: understanding and living with uncertainty, pp 1272–1279Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Systems EngineeringUniversidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations