Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 427–437 | Cite as

Identifying geospatial inconsistency of web services metadata using spatial ranking

  • Walter Renteria-Agualimpia
  • Francisco Javier Lopez-Pellicer
  • Javier Lacasta
  • Pedro Rafael Muro-Medrano
  • F. Javier Zarazaga-Soria
Research Article


Geospatial metadata is one of the key elements of the geographic resource catalogues on the Web. Catalogues such as GeoNetwork use the direct and indirect spatial references from metadata to process spatial queries. The visibility of resources in a collection often depends on the consistency of the descriptions that help to find resources. Spatially inconsistent metadata records can hide resources and make them irretrievable. This paper presents a semi-automatic approach based on the combination of spatial ranking, reverse geocoding, geographic knowledge organization systems, and information retrieval techniques able to detect geospatial inconsistencies in metadata collections. Experimental results with a dataset of Geospatial Web Service metadata records show that this approach provides a significant advantage in terms of inconsistency detection, and rich insight into the metadata. People responsible of geospatial catalogues, such as librarians and Spatial Data Infrastructure managers, could take advantage of the approach presented in this work to assess the visibility of their assets.


Geospatial metadata Consistency Visibility Web services Spatial ranking Spatial data infrastructure 



This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Government (project TIN2012-37826-C02-01), the Government of Aragon (project INNOVA-A1-038-13), the National Geographic Institute (IGN) of Spain and GeoSpatiumLab S.L. The work of Walter Renteria-Agualimpia has been partially supported by a grant (ref. B181/11) from the Aragon Government.


  1. Amitay E, Har’El N, Sivan R, Soffer A (2004) Web–a–where: geotagging web content. In: SIGIR’04: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR. New York, pp 273–280. doi: 10.1145/1008992.1009040
  2. Atallah M (1983) A linear time algorithm for the Hausdorff distance between convex polygons. Inf Process Lett 17(4):207–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beard K, Sharma V (1997) Multidimensional ranking for data in digital spatial libraries. International Journal of Digital Libruries 1:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bédard Y, Merrett T, Han J (2001) Fundamentals of spatial data warehousing for geographic knowledge discovery. Geogr Data Min Knowl Discov 2:53–73Google Scholar
  5. Bonan L, Fonseca F (2006) TDD: a comprehensive model for qualitative spatial similarity assessment. Spat Cogn Comput 6(1):31–62Google Scholar
  6. Cohn A, Hazarika S (2001) Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning: an overview. Fundam Inf 43(2–32)Google Scholar
  7. Egenhofer M (2002) Toward the semantic geospatial web. In Proc. 10th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, ACM, pp 1–4. doi: 10.1145/585147.585148
  8. Egenhofer M, Franzosa R (1995) On the equivalence of topological relations. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 9(2):133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) Content standard for digital geospatial metadata. Available online at:, 1998. Ver. 2. Accessed June 8 2013
  10. Frontiera P, Larson R, Radke J (2008) A comparison of geometric approaches to assessing spatial similarity for GIR. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22(3):337–360. doi: 10.1080/13658810701626293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelernter J (2009) Image indexing in article component databases. J Am Soc Inform Scie Technol 60(10):1965–1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goyal R, Egenhofer M (2001) Similarity of cardinal directions. In: Jensen C, Schneider M, Seeger B, Tsotras V (Eds) Seventh International Symposium on Spatial and Temporal Databases.Google Scholar
  13. Grütter R, Bauer-Messmer B (2007) Towards spatial reasoning in the semantic web: a hybrid knowledge representation system architecture. In The European Information Society. Springer, Berlin, pp 349–364Google Scholar
  14. Gui Z, Yang C, Xia J, Liu K, Xu C, Li J, Lostritto P (2013) A performance, semantic and service quality-enhanced distributed search engine for improving geospatial resource discovery. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27(6):1109–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartmann J, Stuckenschmidt H (2002) Automatic metadata analysis for environmental information systems. In Proceedings of Environmental Informatics 2002. Metropolis Verlag, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill L (1990) Access to geographic concepts in online bibliographic fdes: effectiveness of current practices and the potential of a graphic interface. PhD thesis, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill L (2006) Georeferencing: the geographic associations of information (Digital Libraries & Electronic Publishing). MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Huttenlocher D, Gregory A (1993) Klanderman, and William J. Rucklidge. “Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance”. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 15(9):850–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janée G (2003) Spatial similarity functions. Available online at: Accessed Oct 23 2013
  20. Janowicz K, Schade S, Bröring A, Kessler C, Maue P, Stasch C (2010) Semantic enablement for spatial data infrastructures. Trans GIS (14):111–129Google Scholar
  21. Janowicz K, Raubal M, Kuhn W (2011) The semantics of similarity in geographic information retrieval. J Spat Inf Sci 2:29–57Google Scholar
  22. Jones CB, Alani H, Tudhope D (2001) Geographical information retrieval with ontologies of place. In Spatial information theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 322–335Google Scholar
  23. Jones CB, Purves R, Ruas A, Sanderson M, Sester M, Van Kreveld M, Weibel R (2002) Spatial information retrieval and geographical ontologies an overview of the SPIRIT project. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, pp 387–388.Google Scholar
  24. Kresse W, Danko D (Eds) (2011) Springer handbook of geographic information. Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Landauer TK, McNamara DS, Dennis S, Kintsch W (2007) Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Larson R (2011) Ranking approaches for GIR. SIGSPATIAL 3(2):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leidner JL (2004) Towards a reference corpus for automatic toponym resolution evaluation. In Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval, Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Leveling J (2011) Challenges for indexing in GIR. SIGSPATIAL 3(2):29–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Longhorn RA (2005) Geospatial standards, interoperability, metadata semantics and spatial data infrastructure. In Proceedings NIEeS Workshop on Activating Metadata, Cambridge, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  30. Lopez-Pellicer FJ, Renteria-Agualimpia W, Béjar R, Muro-Medrano PR Zarazaga-Soria FJ (2012a) Availability of the OGC geoprocessing standard: March 2011 reality check. Comput Geosci 47:13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopez-Pellicer FJ, Lacasta J, Florczyk A, Nogueras-Iso J, Zarazaga-Soria FJ (2012b) An ontology for the representation of spatio-temporal jurisdictional domains in information retrieval systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26(4):579–597. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2011.599811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lutz M (2006) Ontology-based discovery and composition of geographic information services. Ph. D. Thesis, Institut für Geoinformatik, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  33. Martins B, Calado P (2010) Learning to rank for geographic information retrieval. In Proc. of the 6th Workshop on GIR. ACM, p 21Google Scholar
  34. Martins B, Silva MJ, Freitas S, Afonso AP (2006) Handling locations in search engine queries. GIR 6:1–6Google Scholar
  35. Martins B, Borbinha J, Pedrosa G, Jo G, Freire N (2007) Geographically-aware information retrieval for collections of digitized historical maps. In: GIR’07: Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on GIR, pp 39–42Google Scholar
  36. Nogueras-Iso J, Zarazaga-Soria FJ, Muro-Medrano PR (2005) Geographic information metadata for spatial data infrastructures. Springer, Berlin, ISBN: 3-540-24464-6Google Scholar
  37. Piasecki M, Bermudez L, Beran B, Islam S, Choi YR, Liang X, Jeong S (2010) Hydrologic Metadata, Hydrologic Information System Status Report, 88Google Scholar
  38. Renteria-Agualimpia W, Lopez-Pellicer FJ, Lacasta J, Muro-Medrano PR, Zarazaga-Soria FJ (2013a) Una aproximación geosemántica para detectar inconsistencia en los metadatos de servicios web geoespaciales. GeoFocus. Available online at:
  39. Renteria-Agualimpia W, Lopez-Pellicer FJ, Lacasta J, Zarazaga-Soria FJ, Muro-Medrano PR (2013b) Identifying hidden geospatial resources in catalogues. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics. ACM, p 32Google Scholar
  40. Renz J (2002) Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning. In Qualitative spatial reasoning with topological information. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Salton G, McGill MJ (1983) Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Stvilia B, Gasser L, Twidale MB, Shreeves S, Cole T (2004) Metadata quality for federated collections. In: Chengulur-Smith S, Raschid L, Long J, Seko C (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Quality–ICIQ. MITIQ, Cambridge, pp 111–125Google Scholar
  43. Walker D, Newman I, Medyckyj-Scot D, Ruggles C (1992) A system for identifying datasets for GIS users. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 6:511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang Y, Wei F (2009) A schema-matching-based approach to propagating updates between heterogeneous spatial databases. Geoinformatics 2008 and Joint Conference on GIS and Built environment: Advanced Spatial Data Models and Analyses. International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang L, Wang C, Xie X, Forman J, Lu Y, Ma W, Li Y (2005) Detecting dominant locations from search queries. In Proceedings of SIGIR-05, the 28th Conf. on Research and development in information retrievalGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu HQ, Reiff-Marganiec S (2008) A method for automated web service selection. In Services-Part I, 2008. Congress on IEEE, pp 513–520Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Renteria-Agualimpia
    • 1
  • Francisco Javier Lopez-Pellicer
    • 1
  • Javier Lacasta
    • 1
  • Pedro Rafael Muro-Medrano
    • 1
  • F. Javier Zarazaga-Soria
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations