Advertisement

GeoInformatica

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 355–378 | Cite as

Bridging Ontologies and Conceptual Schemas in Geographic Information Integration

  • Frederico Fonseca
  • Clodoveu Davis
  • Gilberto Câmara
Article

Abstract

Integration of geographic information has increased in importance because of new possibilities arising from the interconnected world and the increasing availability of geographic information. Ontologies support the creation of conceptual models and help with information integration. In this paper, we propose a way to link the formal representation of semantics (i.e., ontologies) to conceptual schemas describing information stored in databases. The main result is a formal framework that explains a mapping between a spatial ontology and a geographic conceptual schema. The mapping of ontologies to conceptual schemas is made using three different levels of abstraction: formal, domain, and application levels. At the formal level, highly abstract concepts are used to express the schema and the ontologies. At the domain level, the schema is regarded as an instance of a generic data model. At the application level, we focus on the particular case of geographic applications. We also discuss the influence of ontologies in both the traditional and geographic systems development methodologies, with an emphasis on the conceptual design phase.

ontologies geographic conceptual models geographic data modeling geographic information systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Moulton, S.E. Madnick, and M.D. Siegel. “Knowledge representation architecture for context interchange mediation: Fixed income securities investment examples,” presented at W01: WEBH—First International Workshop on Electronic Business Hubs: XML, Metadata, Ontologies, and Business Knowledge on the Web, Munich, Germany, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Moulton, S.E. Madnick, and M.D. Siegel. “Cross organizational data quality and semantic integrity: Learning and reasoning about data semantics with context interchange mediation,” MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 108, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Guarino. “Formal ontology and information systems,” in N. Guarino (Ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Hakimpour and A. Geppert. “Global schema generation using formal ontologies,” presented at Conceptual Modeling—ER 2002, 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Tampere, Finland, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Hakimpour and S. Timpf. “Using ontologies for resolution of semantic heterogeneity in GIS,” presented at 4th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Brno, Czech Republic, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Anselin. “What is special about spatial data? Alternative perspectives on spatial data analysis,” NCGIA, Santa Barbara, CA, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Egenhofer. “What's special about spatial? Database requirements for vehicle navigation in geographic space,” Sigmod Record, Vol. 22:398–402, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Sheth and J. Larson. “Federated databases systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases,” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 22:183–236, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Kent. “Object orientation and interoperability,” in Advances in Object-Oriented Database Systems, Vol. 130, NATO Advanced Study Institute on Object-Oriented Database Systems. Springer: Izmir, Kusadasi, Turkey, 1993, pp. 287–305.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Papakonstantinou, H. Garcia-Molina, and J. Widom. “Object exchange across heterogeneous information sources,” presented at IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Wiederhold. “Mediators in the architecture of future information systems,” Stanford University, September 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Wiederhold. “Interoperation, mediation and ontologies,” presented at International Symposium on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS94), Tokyo, Japan, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe. “A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration,” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 18:323–364, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Goodchild, M. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C. Kottman. Interoperating Geographic Information Systems. Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Bishr. “Semantic aspects of interoperable GIS,” Wageningen Agricultural University: The Netherlands, 1997, p. 154.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Bishr. “Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 12:299–314, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Harvey. “Designing for interoperability: Overcoming semantic differences,” in M. Goodchild, M. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C. Kottman (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1999, pp. 85–98.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Gahegan. “Characterizing the semantic content of geographic data, models, and systems,” in M. Goodchild, M. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C. Kottman (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1999, pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V. Kashyap and A. Sheth. “Semantic heterogeneity in global information system: The role of metadata, context and ontologies,” in M. Papazoglou and G. Schlageter (Eds.), Cooperative Information Systems: Current Trends and Directions, Academic Press: London, 1996, pp. 139–178.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Illarramendi, and A. Sheth. “Domain specific ontologies for semantic information brokering on the global information infrastructure,” in N. Guarino (Ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, IOS Press: Amsterdam, 1998, pp. 269–283.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Worboys and S. Deen. “Semantic heterogeneity in geographic databases,” Sigmod Record, Vol. 20: 30–34, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Sheth. “Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: from system, syntax, structure to semantics,” in M. Goodchild, M. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C. Kottman (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1999, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. Kuhn. “Defining semantics for spatial data transfer,” presented at Sixth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Câmara, R. Souza, U. Freitas, and A. Monteiro. “Interoperability in practice: Problems in semantic conversion from current technology to OpenGIS,” in A. Vckovski, K. Brassel, and H.-J. Schek (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems—Second International Conference, INTEROP'99, vol. 1580, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1999, pp. 129–138.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Rodríguez. “Assessing semantic similarity among spatial entity classes,” in Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine: Orono, ME, 2000, p. 182.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Wiederhold and J. Jannink. “Composing diverse ontologies,” Stanford University, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Sheth, and A. Illarramendi. “OBSERVER: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies,” presented at First IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS'96), Brussels, Belgium, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Smith and D. Mark. “Geographical categories: An ontological investigation,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15: 591–612, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Smith and D. Mark. “Ontology and geographic kinds,” presented at International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Smith. “An introduction to ontology,” in D. Peuquet, B. Smith, and B. Brogaard (Eds.), The Ontology of Fields, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis: Santa Barbara, CA, 1998, pp. 10–14.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    B. Smith and D. Mark. “Ontology with human subjects testing: An empirical investigation of geographic categories,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 58:245–272, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Mark. “Toward a theoretical framework for geographic entity types,” in A. Frank and I. Campari (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory, Vol. 716, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1993, pp. 270–283.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Frank. “Spatial ontology,” in O. Stock (Ed.), Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997, pp. 135–153.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. Frank. “Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15: 667–678, 2001.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    F. Fonseca and M. Egenhofer. “Ontology-driven geographic information systems,” presented at 7th ACM Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Kansas City, MO, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    T. Bittner and S. Winter. “On ontology in image analysis in integrated spatial databases,” in P. Agouris and A. Stefanidis (Eds.), Integrated Spatial Databases: Digital Images and GIS—Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1737, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1999, pp. 168–191.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Câmara, A. Monteiro, J. Paiva, and R. Souza. “Action-driven ontologies of the geographical space: Beyond the field-object debate,” presented at GIScience 2000—First International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Savannah, GA, 2000.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Rodríguez, M. Egenhofer, and R. Rugg. “Assessing semantic similarity among geospatial feature class definitions,” in A. Vckovski, K. Brassel, and H.-J. Schek (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems—Second International Conference, INTEROP'99, Vol. 1580, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1999, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    S. Winter. “Ontology: Buzzword or paradigm shift in GI science?” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:587–590, 2001.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    R. Fikes and A. Farquhar. “Distributed repositories of higly expressive reusable ontologies,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 14:73–79, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Z. Cui, D. Jones, and P. O'Brien. “Semantic B2B integration: Issues in ontology-based applications,” Sigmod Record Web Edition, Vol. 31, 2002.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Y.A. Bishr and W. Kuhn. “Ontology-based modelling of geospatial information,” presented at 3rd. AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Helsinki, Finland, 2000.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    P.S.S. Chen. “The entity-relationship model: Towards a unified view of data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 1:9–36, 1976.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rational Software Corporation. “The unified language: Notation guide, version 1.1,” 1.1 ed: Rational Software Corporation, 1997.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. Sowa. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brook/Cole, a division of Thomsom Learning: Pacific Grove, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    F. Fonseca. “Ontology-driven geographic information systems,” in Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine: Orono, 2001, p. 118.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    H. Couclelis. “People manipulate objects (but cultivate fields): Beyond the raster-vector debate in GIS,” in A.U. Frank, I. Campari, and U. Formentini (Eds.), Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, Vol. 639, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: New York, 1992, pp. 65–77.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    H. Couclelis. “From cellular automata to urban models: New principles for model development and implementation,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 24:165–174, 1997.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    OpenGIS. The OpenGIS ® Guide-Introduction to Interoperable Geoprocessing and the OpenGIS Specification. Open GIS Consortium, Inc: Wayland, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    J. Nunes. “Geographic space as a set of concrete geographical entities,” in D. Mark and A. Frank (Eds.), Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space, Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1991, pp. 9–33.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    T. Gruber. “The role of common ontology in achieving sharable, reusable knowledge bases,” presented at Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    W. Kuhn. “Metaphors create theories for users,” in A. Frank and I. Campari (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory, Vol. 716, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1993, pp. 366–376.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    S. Ram, V. Khatri, L. Zhang, and D. D. Zeng. “GeoCosm: A semantics-based approach for information integration of geospatial data,” presented at Conceptual Modeling—ER 2001, 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Yokohama, Japan, 2001.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    N. Guarino. “Semantic matching: Formal ontological distinctions for information organization, extraction, and integration,” presented at Information Extraction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to an Emerging Information Technology, International Summer School, SCIE-97, Frascati, Italy, 1997.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    B. Smith. “On drawing lines on a map,” in A. Frank and W. Kuhn (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory—A Theoretical Basis for GIS, International Conference COSIT '95, Vol. 988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1995, pp. 475–484.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    S. Abiteboul and R. Hull. “IFO: A formal semantic database model,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 12:525–565, 1987.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    J.L. Oliveira, F. Pires, and C.M.B. Medeiros. “An environment for modeling and design of geographic applications,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 1:29–58, 1997.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    A. Frank and D. Mark. “Language issues for GIS,” in D. Maguire, M. Goodchild, and D. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems, Volume 1: Principles, Longman: London, 1991, pp. 147–163.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    K. Borges, C. Davis, and A. Laender. “OMT-G: An object-oriented data model for geographic applications,” Geoinformatica, Vol. 5:221–260, 2001.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    R. Elmasri and S. Navathe. Fundamentals of database systems, 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 2000.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    C. Davis and A. Laender. “Multiple representations in GIS: Materialization through map generalization, geometric and spatial analysis operations,” presented at 7th ACM Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Kansas City, MO, 1999.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    P. Burrough and A. Frank. “Spatial conceptual models for geographic objects with undetermined boundaries,” Taylor & Francis: London, 1996.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    M. Egenhofer and R. Franzosa. “On the equivalence of topological relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 9:133–152, 1995.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    G.A. Miller. “WordNet: A lexical database for English,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38:39–41, 1995.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    F. Fonseca, J. Martin, and A. Rodríguez. “From geo to eco-ontologies,” in M. Egenhofer and D. Mark (Eds.), Geographic Information Science-Second International Conference GIScience 2002, Vol. 2478, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 2002, pp. 93–107.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    A. Rodríguez and M. Egenhofer. “Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2002.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    C.W. Holsapple and K.D. Joshi. “A collaborative approach to ontology design,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45:42–47, 2002.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    M. Gruninger and J. Lee. “Ontology applications and design,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45:39–41, 2002.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. “The semantic web a new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities,” The Scientific American, Vol. 284: 34–43, 2001.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    V. Sugumaran and V.C. Storey. “Ontologies for conceptual modeling: Their creation, use, and management,” Data & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 42:251–271, 2002.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    R. Weber. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers and Lybrand, 1997.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    R.L. Ashenhurst. “Ontological aspects of information modeling,” Minds and Machines, Vol. 6:287–317, 1996.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    A. Rodríguez and M. Varas. “A knowledge-based approach to querying heterogeneous databases,” in M.-S. Hacid, Z.W. Ras, D.A. Zighed, and Y. Kodratoff (Eds.), Foundations of Intelligent Systems, 13th International Symposium, ISMIS 2002, Vol. 2366, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 2002, pp. 213–222.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    A. Goi, E. Mena, and A. Illarramendi. “Querying heterogeneous and distributed data repositories using ontologies,” presented at Information Modelling and Knowledge Base IX, 1998.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    J. Chaffee and S. Gauch. “Personal ontologies for web navigation,” presented at The 9th International Conference on Information Knowledge Management CIKM 2000, McLean, Virginia, 2000.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    T.R. Gruber. “Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing,” International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol. 43:907–928, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederico Fonseca
    • 1
  • Clodoveu Davis
    • 2
  • Gilberto Câmara
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkU.S.A
  2. 2.Prodabel – Empresa de Informática e Informação doMunicípio de Belo HorizonteBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Image Processing DivisionNational Institute for Space Research (INPE)Brazil

Personalised recommendations