Skip to main content

Bridging Ontologies and Conceptual Schemas in Geographic Information Integration

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

  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.

  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. 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.

  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.

  6. L. Anselin. “What is special about spatial data? Alternative perspectives on spatial data analysis,” NCGIA, Santa Barbara, CA, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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.

  11. G. Wiederhold. “Mediators in the architecture of future information systems,” Stanford University, September 1991.

  12. G. Wiederhold. “Interoperation, mediation and ontologies,” presented at International Symposium on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS94), Tokyo, Japan, 1994.

  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. M. Goodchild, M. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, and C. Kottman. Interoperating Geographic Information Systems. Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Y. Bishr. “Semantic aspects of interoperable GIS,” Wageningen Agricultural University: The Netherlands, 1997, p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. M. Worboys and S. Deen. “Semantic heterogeneity in geographic databases,” Sigmod Record, Vol. 20: 30–34, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  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. W. Kuhn. “Defining semantics for spatial data transfer,” presented at Sixth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1994.

  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. 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. G. Wiederhold and J. Jannink. “Composing diverse ontologies,” Stanford University, 1998.

  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.

  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. B. Smith and D. Mark. “Ontology and geographic kinds,” presented at International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1998.

  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. 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. 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. A. Frank. “Spatial ontology,” in O. Stock (Ed.), Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997, pp. 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

  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. 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.

  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. S. Winter. “Ontology: Buzzword or paradigm shift in GI science?” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15:587–590, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Fikes and A. Farquhar. “Distributed repositories of higly expressive reusable ontologies,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 14:73–79, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Z. Cui, D. Jones, and P. O'Brien. “Semantic B2B integration: Issues in ontology-based applications,” Sigmod Record Web Edition, Vol. 31, 2002.

  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.

  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. 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. Rational Software Corporation. “The unified language: Notation guide, version 1.1,” 1.1 ed: Rational Software Corporation, 1997.

  46. J. Sowa. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brook/Cole, a division of Thomsom Learning: Pacific Grove, CA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  47. F. Fonseca. “Ontology-driven geographic information systems,” in Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine: Orono, 2001, p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. OpenGIS. The OpenGIS ® Guide-Introduction to Interoperable Geoprocessing and the OpenGIS Specification. Open GIS Consortium, Inc: Wayland, MA, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  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. T. Gruber. “The role of common ontology in achieving sharable, reusable knowledge bases,” presented at Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, 1991.

  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. 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.

  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.

  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. S. Abiteboul and R. Hull. “IFO: A formal semantic database model,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 12:525–565, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. R. Elmasri and S. Navathe. Fundamentals of database systems, 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  63. P. Burrough and A. Frank. “Spatial conceptual models for geographic objects with undetermined boundaries,” Taylor & Francis: London, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  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. G.A. Miller. “WordNet: A lexical database for English,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38:39–41, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  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. A. Rodríguez and M. Egenhofer. “Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2002.

  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. M. Gruninger and J. Lee. “Ontology applications and design,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45:39–41, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. R. Weber. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers and Lybrand, 1997.

  73. R.L. Ashenhurst. “Ontological aspects of information modeling,” Minds and Machines, Vol. 6:287–317, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  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. A. Goi, E. Mena, and A. Illarramendi. “Querying heterogeneous and distributed data repositories using ontologies,” presented at Information Modelling and Knowledge Base IX, 1998.

  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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fonseca, F., Davis, C. & Câmara, G. Bridging Ontologies and Conceptual Schemas in Geographic Information Integration. GeoInformatica 7, 355–378 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025573406389

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025573406389

  • ontologies
  • geographic conceptual models
  • geographic data modeling
  • geographic information systems