Spatial Data Relations as a Means to Enrich Species Observations from Crowdsourcing

  • Stefan WiemannEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


The general fascination of nature has always been a major driver for studies on living animal and plant species. A large number of professionals and especially volunteers are organized in related initiatives and projects from the local to the global level, leading to the vast amount of species observations nowadays available on the Web. This article seeks to enhance this knowledge base by the determination, management and analysis of feature entity relations among the observations. Those relationships are considered important for comprehensive biological monitoring and, in general, facilitate the integrated use of existing data sources on the Web. Particular emphasis is put on crowdsourcing, which increasingly receives attention and support by citizen science initiatives. The Linked Data paradigm, representing the core of the Semantic Web, is applied to describe, handle and exploit relations in a standardized and thus interoperable manner. Methodologies to determine and validate relationships are developed and implemented. The implementation combines the analysis of spatio-temporal behavioral patterns of species with a crowdsourcing approach for the validation of determined relations. The vagueness of results is addressed by assessing the probability of a relation.


Crowdsourcing Species observation Linked data Spatial data relations 



The work presented in this paper has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 308513, COBWEB.


  1. Allen JF (1983) Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun ACM 26:832–843. doi: 10.1145/182.358434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlam-Brooks HLA, Harris S (2013) Data from: in search of greener pastures: using satellite images to predict the effects of environmental change on zebra migrationGoogle Scholar
  3. Compton M, Barnaghi P, Bermudez L et al (2012) The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group. J Web Semant 17:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2012.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crofoot MC, Kays RW, Wikelski M (2015) Data from: shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboonsGoogle Scholar
  5. Cushman SA (2010) Animal movement data: GPS telemetry, autocorrelation and the need for path-level analysis. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer Japan, Tokyo, pp 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Egenhofer M (1994) Deriving the composition of binary topological relations. J Vis Lang Comput 5:133–149. doi: 10.1006/jvlc.1994.1007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egenhofer MJ, Franzosa RD (1991) Point-set topological spatial relations. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 5:161–174. doi: 10.1080/02693799108927841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank AU (1992) Qualitative spatial reasoning about distances and directions in geographic space. J Vis Lang Comput 3:343–371. doi: 10.1016/1045-926X(92)90007-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fritz S, McCallum I, Schill C et al (2009) Geo-Wiki.Org: the use of crowdsourcing to improve global land cover. Remote Sens 1:345–354. doi: 10.3390/rs1030345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GBIF (2015) GBIF occurrence download. doi: 10.15468/dl.uuel8m
  11. Guarino N (1997) Semantic matching: formal ontological distinctions for information organization, extraction, and integration. In: Pazienza MT (ed) Information extraction: a multidisciplinary approach to an emerging information technology, lecture notes in computer science, vol 1299. Springer, pp 139–170Google Scholar
  12. Hornsby K, Egenhofer MJ (2000) Identity-based change: a foundation for spatio-temporal knowledge representation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:207–224. doi: 10.1080/136588100240813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. INSPIRE (2013) INSPIRE data specification for the spatial data theme species distribution. INSPIRE drafting team “Data Specifications”Google Scholar
  14. ISO (2014) Geographic information—reference model—Part 1: fundamentals (ISO 19101-1:2014). International organization for standardization, ISO/TC 211Google Scholar
  15. ISO (2005) Geographic information—rules for application schema (ISO 19109:2005). International organization for standardization, ISO/TC 211Google Scholar
  16. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, Menlo Park, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. Lidgard DC, Bowen WD, Iverson SJ (2015) Data from: a novel approach to quantifying the spatiotemporal behavior of instrumented grey seals used to sample the environmentGoogle Scholar
  18. Mäs S (2008) Reasoning on spatial relations between entity classes. In: Cova TJ, Miller HJ, Beard K et al (eds) Geographic information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 234–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morschheuser B, Hamari J, Koivisto J (2016) Gamification in crowdsourcing: a review. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. OGC (2013) OGC Abstract specification: geographic information—observations and measurements. Open geospatial consortiumGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfeifer N, Kleiter GD (2009) Framing human inference by coherence based probability logic. J Appl Log 7:206–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jal.2007.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor K, Parsons E (2015) Where is everywhere: bringing location to the web. IEEE Internet Comput 19:83–87. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2015.50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Varzi AC (2007) Spatial reasoning and ontology: parts, wholes, and locations. Handb Spat Logics SE— 15:945–1038. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5587-4_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiemann S, Bernard L (2014) Linking crowdsourced observations with INSPIRE. In: Huerta J, Schade S, Granell C (eds) Proceedings of the AGILE’2014 international conference on geographic information scienceGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiemann S, Bernard L (2016) Spatial data fusion in spatial data infrastructures using linked data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 30(4):613–636. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2015.1084420
  26. Worboys MF (2001) Nearness relations in environmental space. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15:633–651. doi: 10.1080/13658810110061162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of GeoinformaticsTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations