GeoInformatica

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 285–302 | Cite as

From “Onto-GeoNoesis” to “Onto-Genesis”: The Design of Geographic Ontologies

  • Eleni Tomai
  • Marinos Kavouras
Article

Abstract

An important issue in geographic ontological research is the ability to design new ontologies. In this context, we first explore the desiderata of domain ontologies in terms of their constituting elements: i.e., the lexicon, concepts, relations, and axioms. Furthermore, we touch upon several characteristics of geographic concepts, which have puzzled geographic information scientists, and present critical topics of geographic ontological research. Based on the previous aspects of the problem, and guided by prior work of analyzing existent geographic ontologies, we have identified their qualities and deficiencies with regard to completeness and adequacy. This “meta-ontological” approach has guided us in presenting herein, a framework for generating robust geographic ontologies, which will comply with the semantics of the concepts of the specific domain.

ontology generation geographic ontologies semantic relations semantic properties axioms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American National Standard for Information SystemsSpatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS)Part 2, Spatial Features, Annex A, Entity Types: http://mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/sdts/SDTS_standard_nov97/ p2anxa.html, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Barriere. From a Children's First Dictionary to a Lexical Knowledge Base of Conceptual Graphs. Ph.D. Thesis, Simon Eraser University, BC, Canada, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.W. Barsalou. “Ad hoc categories,” Memory & Cognition, Vol. 11:211–227, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Bennett. “What is a forest? On the vagueness of certain geographic concepts,” Topoi, Vol. 20:189–201, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Casati, B. Smith, and A.C. Varzi. “Ontological tools for geographic representation,” in N. Guarino (Ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 77–85, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Couclelis. “A typology of geographic entities with ill-defined boundaries,” in PA. Burrough and A.U. Frank (Eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, Taylor & Francis, pp. 45-56, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Egenhofer. “What's special about spatial?: Database requirements for vehicle navigation in geographic space,” in Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Washington, D.C., USA, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 398–402, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Eschenbach. “Viewing composition tables as axiomatic systems,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems FOIS'OI, Ogunquit, Maine USA, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 93–104, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Environmental Agency: CORINE Land Cover Methodology and Nomenclature. http://reports.eea.eu.int/CORO-partl/en/land_coverPartl.pdf, http://reports.eea.eu.int/CORO-part2/en/ tab_content_RLR, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Fellbaum. “English verbs as a semantic net,” ftp://ftp . cogsci . princeton . edu/pub/wordnet/5papers . ps , 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Fonseca, C. Davis, and G. Camara. “Bridging ontologies and conceptual schemas in geographic information integration,” Geoinformatica, Vol. 7-4:355–378, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Fonseca, M. Egenhofer, P. Agouris, and G. Camara. “Using ontologies for integrated geographic information systems,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 6–3:231–257, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Fonseca and J. Martin. “Toward an alternative notion of information systems ontologies: Information engineering as a hermeneutic enterprise,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, in print, http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/f/u/fufl/Fonseca_Martin_IST_TR.pdf, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geographical Data Description Directory (GDDD): The European Dataset Catalogue, http://www.eurogeo_graphics.org/gddd/lists/features.htm, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Guarino. “Formal ontology and information systems,” in N. Guarino (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems FOIS'98, Trento, Italy, IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3–15, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.W. Holsapple and K.D. Joshi. “A collaborative approach to ontology design,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45:42–47,2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Kavouras. “Understanding and modeling spatial change,” in A. Frank, J. Raper, and J.P. Cheylan (Eds.), Life and Motion of Socio-Economic Units, Chapter 4. Taylor & Francis: London, GISDATA Series 8, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Kavouras and M. Kokia. “A method for the formalization and integration of geographical categorizations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 16(5):439–453, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Kavouras, M. Kokia, and E. lornai. “Determination, visualization, and interpretation of semantic similarity among geographic ontologies,” in M. Gould, R. Laurini, and S. Coulondre (Eds.), Proceedings of 6th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Lyon, France, 51–56, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Kokia and M. Kavouras. “Extracting latent semantic relations from definitions to disambiguate geographic ontologies,” in G. Zavala (Ed.), GIScience 2002 Abstracts, University of California Regents, 87–90,2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Kuhn. “Ontologies in support for activities in geographic space,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15(7):613–631, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Kuhn. “Modeling the semantics of geographic categories through conceptual integration,” in M. Egenhofer and D.M. Mark (Eds.), Geographic Information Science, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, GIScience 2002, Boulder, CO, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Kulik. “A geometric theory of vague boundaries based on supervaluation,” in D.R. Montello (Ed.), Spatial Information Theory.'01, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 44–59,2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    B.N. Madsen, B.S. Pedersen, and H.E. Thomson. “Defining semantic relations for OntoQuery,” in P.A. Jensen and PR. Skadhauge (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International OntoQuery Workshop, Institutfor Fagsprog, Kommunikation og Informationsvidenskab. Syddansk Universitet, 57–88, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Maedche and S. Staab. “Ontology learning for the semantic web,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 16(2):72–79,2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Maedche and S. Staab. “Semi-automatic engineering of ontologies from text,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Margolis and S. Laurence (Eds.). Concepts Core Readings. The MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Mark, B. Smith, and B. Tversky. “Ontology and geographic objects: An empirical study of cognitive categorization,” in C. Freksa (Ed.), Spatial Information Theory.'99, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 283–298, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Rodriguez and M. Egenhofer. “Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies,” in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 12:442–456, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Saias and P. Quaresma. “Using NLP techniques to create legal ontologies in a logic programming-based web information retrieval system,” ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies & Web Based Legal Information Management, http://www.lri.jur.uva.nl/~winkels/LegOnt2003/Saias.pdf, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Sharnsfard and A.A. Barforoush. “Learning ontologies from natural language texts,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 60:17–63, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    B. Smith. “Fiat objects,” in N. Guarino, L. Vieu, and S. Pribbenow (Eds.), Parts and Wholes: Conceptual Part-Whole Relations and Formal Mereology, 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence Amsterdam, 15–23, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. Smith and D. Mark. “Ontology and geographic kinds,” in T.K. Poiker and N. Chrisman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH'98), International Geographical Union: Vancouver, 308–320, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    B. Smith and D. Mark. “Ontology with human subjects testing: An empirical investigation of geographic categories,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 58:245–272, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    B. Smith and A.C. Varzi. “Fiat and bona fide boundaries,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 60:401–420,2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Staab and A. Maedche. “Ontology engineering beyond the modeling of concepts and relations,” in R.V. Benjamins, A. Gomez-Perez, N. Guarino, and M. Uschold (Eds.), Proceedings of tile ECAI'2000 Workshop on Application of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    L.H. van der Wende. The Analysis of Noun Sequences using Semantic Information Extracted from On-Line Dictionaries. Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University, NW, Washington, DC, 1995.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A.C. Varzi. “Philosophical issues in geographyan introduction,” Topoi, Vol. 20:119–130, 2001.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A.C. Varzi. “Vagueness in geography,” Philosophy & GeographyVol. 4:49–65, 2001.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    WORDNET 1.7.1a Lexical Database for the English Language, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University, http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/ Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleni Tomai
    • 1
  • Marinos Kavouras
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Rural and Surveying EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations