Advertisement

Interoperability for GIS Document Management in Environmental Planning

  • Gilberto Zonta Pastorello
  • Claudia Bauzer Medeiros
  • Silvania Maria de Resende
  • Henrique Aparecido da Rocha
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3534)

Abstract

Environmental planning requires constant tracing and revision of activities. Planners must be provided with appropriate documentation tools to aid communication among them and support plan enactment, revision and evolution. Moreover, planners often work in distinct institutions, thus these supporting tools must interoperate in distributed environments and in a semantically coherent fashion. Since semantics are strongly related to use, documentation also enhances the ways in which users can cooperate. The emergence of the Semantic Web created the need for documenting Web data and processes, using specific standards. This paper addresses this problem, for two issues: (1) ways of documenting planning processes, in three different aspects: what was done, how it was done and why it was done that way; and (2) a framework that supports the management of those documents using Semantic Web standards.

Keywords

Geographical Information System Design Rationale Domain Ontology Environmental Planning Document Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ailamaki, A., Ioannidis, Y., Livny, M.: Scientific Workflow Management by Database Management. In: Proc. of 10th IEEE Int. Conf. on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, pp. 190–201 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, K.M., Taylor, R.N., Whitehead Jr., E.J.: Chimera: hypermedia for heterogeneous software development enviroments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 18(3), 211–245 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkin, A.: Business Process Modeling Language. Technical report, BPMI.org, 2002 (as of October 2004), http://www.bpmi.org
  4. 4.
    BPEL4WS. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1. Technical report, BEA Systems, International Business Machines Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, SAP AG, Siebel Systems, 2003 (as of October 2004), www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bpel/
  5. 5.
    Bui, T.X., Sankaran, S.R.: Design Considerations for a Virtual Information Center for Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief using Workflow Modeling. Decision Support Systems 31(2), 165–179 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burge, J.E., Brown, D.C.: Reasoning with Design Rationale. In: Artificial Intelligence in Design 2000, pp. 611–629 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casanova, M.A., Coelho, T.A.S., Carvalho, M.T.M., Corseuil, E.T.L., Nobrega, H., Dias, F.M., Levy, C.H.: The Design of XPAE - An Emergency Plan Definition Language. In: IV Brazilian Geoinformatics Symp., pp. 25–32 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casati, F., Discenza, A.: Supporting Workflow Cooperation Within and Across Organizations. In: ACM Symp. Applied Computing, vol. 1, pp. 196–202 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark Labs. Geographic Analysis and Image Processing Software (as of October 2004), http://www.clarklabs.org
  10. 10.
    Coloudre, S., Libourel, T., Spéry, L.: Metadata and GIS: a classification of metadata for GIS. In: 1st Int. Conf. and Exhibition on Geographic Information (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conklin, J., Begeman, M.: gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6(4), 303–331 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ESRI. GIS and Mapping Service (as of October 2004), http://www.esri.com
  13. 13.
    Federal Geographic Data Committee. Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) (as of October 2004), http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
  14. 14.
    Fileto, R.: The POESIA Approach for Services and Data Integration On the Semantic Web. PhD thesis, IC–UNICAMP, Campinas–SP (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fileto, R., Liu, L., Pu, C., Assad, E.D., Medeiros, C.B.: POESIA: An Ontological Workflow Approach for Composing Web Services in Agriculture. The VLDB Journal 12(4), 352–367 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer, G., Lemke, A., McCall, R., Morch, A.: Chapter Making Argumentation Serve Design. In: Design Rationale Concepts, Techniques, and Use, pp. 267–294. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halasz, F., Schwartz, M.: The Dexter Hypertext Reference Model. Communications of the ACM 37(2), 30–39 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heliades, G.P., Edmonds, E.A.: Notation and Nature of Task in Comprehending Design Rationale. Knowledge Based Systems 13(4), 215–224 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hicks, D.L., Legget, J.J., Nürneberg, P.J., Schnase, J.L.: A Hypermedia Version Control Framework. ACM Trans. on Information Systems 16(2), 127–160 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holowczak, R.D., Chun, S.A., Artigas, F.J., Atluri, V.: Customized geospatial workflows for e-government services. In: Proc. of the 9th ACM Int. Symp. on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pp. 64–69 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaster, D., Medeiros, C.B., Rocha, H.: Supporting Modeling and Problem Solving from Precedent Experiences: The Role of Workflows and Case-Based Reasoning. In: Environmental Modeling and Software (Accepted for publication, 2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leymann, F.: Web Services Flow Language (WSFL 1.0). Technical report, IBM, 2001 (as of October 2004), http://www-3.ibm.com/software/solutions/webservices/pdf/WSFL.pdf
  23. 23.
    MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Bellotti, V., Moran, T.: Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 6(3&4), 201–250 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Moran, T.P.: Design Rationale: The Argument Behind the Artifact. In: Proc. of the SICCHI Conf. on Wings for the mind, pp. 247–252 (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monk, S.R., Sommerville, I., Pendaries, J.M., Durin, B.: Supporting Design Rationale for System Evolution. In: Botella, P., Schäfer, W. (eds.) ESEC 1995. LNCS, vol. 989, pp. 307–323. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grønbæk, K., Trigg, R.H.: Design Issues for a Dexter-based Hypermedia System. Communications of the ACM 37(2), 40–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OASIS Open. OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language Technical Committee (as of October 2004), http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel
  28. 28.
    Oliveira, J., Gonçalves, M., Medeiros, C.B.: A Framework for Designing and Implementing the User Interface of a Geographic Digital Library. International Journal of Digital Libraries 2(2-3), 190–206 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pastorello Jr., G.Z.: Publishing and Integrating Scientific Workflows on the Web (in Portuguese). Master’s thesis, IC–UNICAMP, Campinas–SP (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peerbocus, A., Medeiros, C.B., Voisard, A., Jomier, G.: A System for Change Documentation based on a Spatiotemporal Database. Geoinformatica 8(2), 173–204 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petrie, C., Sarin, S.: Internet-based Workflows – Special issue. Internet Computing (May-June 2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rauschert, I., Agrawal, P., Sharma, R., Fuhrmann, S., Brewer, I., MacEachren, A.: Designing a human-centered, multimodal GIS interface to support emergency management. In: Proc. of the 10th ACM Int. Symp. on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pp. 119–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Resende, S.M.: Database-centered Documentation of Environmental Planning Activities (in Portuguese). Master’s thesis, IC–UNICAMP, Campinas–SP (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rocha, H.A.: Metadata for Scientific Workflows in Environmental Planning Support (in Portuguese). Master’s thesis, IC–UNICAMP, Campinas–SP (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seffino, L., Medeiros, C.B., Rocha, J., Yi, B.: WOODSS - A Spatial Decision Support System based on Workflows. Decision Support Systems 27(1–2), 105–123 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shapiro, R.: A Technical Comparison of XPDL, BPML and BPEL4WS (as of October 2004), http://www.xml.coverpages.org/Shapiro-XPDL.pdf
  37. 37.
    Singh, M., Vouk, M.: Scientific Workflows: Scientific Workflow Meets Transactional Workflow. In: NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems: State of the Art and Future Directions (1996)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thatte, S.: XLANG – Web Services for Business Process Design. Technical report, Microsoft, 2001 (as of October 2004), http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/xlang-c/default.htm
  39. 39.
    The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S 1.0 Release (as of October 2004), www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/
  40. 40.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Don’t go with the flow: Web services composition standards exposed. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(1), 72–76 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Patterns and XPDL: A Critical Evaluation of the XML Process Definition Language. Technical report, Queensland University of Technology, QUT FIT-TR-2003-06 (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    W3C. The World Wide Web Consortium (as of October 2004), http://www.w3.org
  43. 43.
    Wainer, J., Weske, M., Vossen, G., Medeiros, C.B.: Scientific Workflow Systems. In: Proc. of the NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation Information Systems (1996)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    WfMC. The Workflow Reference Model. Technical report, Workflow Management Coalition, TC-1003 (1995)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    WfMC. Workflow Process Definition Interface – XML Process Definition Language. Technical report, Workflow Management Coalition, TC-1025 (2002)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Whitehead Jr., E.J.: Uniform Comparison of Data Models Using Containment Modeling. In: Proc. of 13th Conf. on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 182–191 (2002)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Analysis of Web Services Composition Languages: The Case of BPEL4WS. In: Proc. of the 29th EUROMICRO Conf., pp. 298–305 (2003)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Workflow Patterns (as of October 2004), tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns/
  49. 49.
    WSCI. Web Service Choreography Interface 1.0. Technical report, W3C, BEA Systems, Intalio, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems, 2002 (as of October 2004), www.w3.org/TR/wsci/
  50. 50.
    Xin, W., Guangleng, X.: Supporting design reuse based on integrated design rationale. In: IEEE Int. Conf. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 3, pp. 1909–1912 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilberto Zonta Pastorello
    • 1
  • Claudia Bauzer Medeiros
    • 1
  • Silvania Maria de Resende
    • 1
  • Henrique Aparecido da Rocha
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Information Systems – Institute of ComputingUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations