Ontological Analysis of Observations and Measurements

  • Florian Probst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4197)


Geographic information is based on observations or measurements. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has developed an implementation specification for observations and measurements (O&M). It specifies precisely how to encode information. Yet, the O&M conceptual model does not specify precisely which real-world entities are denoted by the specified information objects. We provide formal semantics for the central O&M terms by aligning them to the foundational ontology DOLCE. The alignment to a foundational ontology restricts the possible interpretations of the central elements in the O&M model and establishes explicit relations between categories of real world entities and classes of information objects. These relations are essential for assessing semantic interoperability between geospatial information sources.


Information Object Domain Ontology Soccer Match Ontology Alignment Real World Entity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    OGC: Observations and Measurements. Open GeoSpatial Consortium, OpenGIS Recommendation Paper OGC 05-087r1 (2005) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the General Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modeling. In: Proc. 1st International Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Applications of Semantics, ODBASE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Enschede, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: WonderWeb Deliverable D18, Ontology Library (final) (2003), Available:
  5. 5.
    Kuhn, W.: Semantic Reference Systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17, 405–409 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuhn, W.: Geospatial Semantics: Why, of What, and How? Journal on Data Semantics, 1–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schneider, L.: Designing Foundational Ontology - The Object-Centered High-level Reference Ontology OCHRE as a Case Study. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 91–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A.: Sweetening WordNet with DOLCE. AI Magazine (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oberle, D., Mika, P., Gangemi, A., Sabou, M.: Foundations for service ontologies: Aligning OWL-S to DOLCE. In: Proc. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004), Semantic Web Track (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noy, F.N., Musen, M.A.: SMART: Automated Support for Ontology Merging and Alignment. In: Proc. 12th Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management (KAW 1999) (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borgo, S., Leitão, P.: The role of foundational ontologies in manufacturing domain applications. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 670–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Degen, W., Heller, B., Herr, H., Smith, B.: GOL: Towards an axiomatized upper level ontology. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference of Formal Ontologies and Information Systems (FOIS 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lenat, D.B., Reed, S.L.: Mapping Ontologies into Cyc. In: Proc. AAAI workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Toward a Standard Upper Ontology. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference of Formal Ontologies and Information Systems (FOIS 2001), pp. 2–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grenon, P., Smith, B.: SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4, 69–104 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. In: Proc. International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. AAAI, Menlo Park (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sloman, S.A., Love, B.C., Woo-Kyoung, A.: Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science 22 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, B., Mark, D.: Ontology and Geographic Kinds. In: Proc. 8th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, SDH 1998, pp. 308–320 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosch, E.: Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1978)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hughes, G.E., Cresswell, M.J.: A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, London (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO/TC-211, OGC: 19101 Geographic information - Reference model. ISO TC 211, Draft International Standard (2002) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/TC-211, OGC: Text for DIS 19109 Geogaphic information - Rules for application schema Vs. 2.0. Draft Version. ISO (2001) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guarino, N.: The Role of Identity Conditions in Ontology DesignGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Welty, C., Guarino, N.: Supporting Ontological Analysis of Taxonomic Relationships. Data and Knowledge Engineering 39, 51–74 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces - The Geometry of Thought. Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Probst
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for GeoinformaticsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations