Advertisement

Modeling Mobility and Dynamics of Scheduled Space-Time Activities—An RDF Approach

  • Junchuan FanEmail author
  • Kathleen Stewart
Chapter
Part of the Human Dynamics in Smart Cities book series (HDSC)

Abstract

In this chapter, we present a semantic data modeling framework for representing and analyzing the movement dynamics of individuals that arise from following a schedule or plan of activities in a semantic-enriched environment, i.e., an environment for which an ontology-driven space-time activity knowledgebase has been constructed. The ontology-driven knowledgebase contains spatial, temporal, and semantic information about geospatial entities in the environment. The relations between geospatial entities in the environment are captured in the knowledgebase through the underlying ontology support. Movement by individuals on a university campus according to a semester-based course schedule is employed as a use case to demonstrate this framework. This work demonstrates an RDF-based semantic data model that is used for reasoning about movement, including the movement trajectories of students on campus based on weekly course schedules. Road network information is incorporated to generate movement trajectories more realistically and data from a campus course information system allows us to query and analyze aggregated movement dynamics on campus. This chapter discusses the advantages of a semantic data modeling approach over traditional data models for human activity and movement including the capability to incorporate different data sources into the analysis, and generate geographic visualizations of movement paths as well as the overall movement dynamics for a campus.

Keywords

Scheduled activity Smart campus RDF Semantic web Human movement 

References

  1. Abukhater, A., & Walker, D. (2010, July). Making smart growth smarter with GeoDesign. Directions Magazine.Google Scholar
  2. Afyouni, I., Ilarri, S., Ray, C., & Claramunt, C. (2013). Context-aware modelling of continuous location-dependent queries in indoor environments. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 5(1), 65–88.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J. F. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23(2), 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Bak, P., Keim, D., Kisilevich, S., & Wrobel, S. (2011). A conceptual framework and taxonomy of techniques for analyzing movement. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 22(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Hurter, C., Rinzivillo, S., & Wrobel, S. (2013a). Scalable analysis of movement data for extracting and exploring significant places. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(7), 1078–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G., & Fuchs, G. (2013b). Towards privacy-preserving semantic mobility analysis. In In EuroVis workshop on visual analytics. The Eurographics Association (pp. 19–23).Google Scholar
  7. Calderoni, L., Maio, D., & Rovis, S. (2014). Deploying a network of smart cameras for traffic monitoring on a ‘city kernel’. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), 502–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, J., Shaw, S.-L., Yu, H., Lu, F., Chai, Y., & Jia, Q. (2011). Exploratory data analysis of activity diary data: A space-time GIS approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(3), 394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crease, P., & Reichenbacher, T. (2013). Linking time geography and activity theory to support the activities of mobile information seekers. Transactions in GIS, 17(4), 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crooks, A., Croitoru, A., Stefanidis, A., & Radzikowski, J. (2013). #Earthquake: Twitter as a distributed sensor system. Transactions in GIS, 17(1), 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egenhofer, M. J. M. (2002). Toward the semantic geospatial web. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM international symposium on Advances in geographic information systems—GIS’02 (pp. 1–4). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Galache, J. A., Sotres, P., Santana, J. R., Gutierrez, V., Sanchez, L., & Munoz, L. (2013). A living smart city: Dynamically changing nodes behavior through over the air programming. In Proceedings—27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, WAINA 2013 (pp. 1271–1276).Google Scholar
  13. Giannotti, F., Nanni, M., Pedreschi, D., Pinelli, F., Renso, C., Rinzivillo, S., et al. (2011). Unveiling the complexity of human mobility by querying and mining massive trajectory data. The VLDB Journal, 20(5), 695–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodchild, M. F. (2007, November). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69, 211–221.Google Scholar
  15. Grenon, P., & Smith, B. (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial cognition and computation, 1 (March), 69–103.Google Scholar
  16. Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24(1), 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janowicz, K., Scheider, S., Pehle, T., & Hart, G. (2012). Geospatial semantics and linked spatiotemporal data—Past, present, and future. Semantic Web, 3(4), 321–332.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, W. (2005). Geospatial semantics: Why, of what, and how? In S. Spaccapietra & E. Zimányi (Eds) Journal on Data Semantics III. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3534). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, W. (2012). Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(12), 2267–2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwan, M.-P., Janelle, D. G., & Goodchild, M. F. (2003). Accessibility in space and time: A theme in spatially integrated social science. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Majid, A., Chen, L., Chen, G., Mirza, H. T., Hussain, I., & Woodward, J. (2013). A context-aware personalized travel recommendation system based on geotagged social media data mining. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 27(4), 662–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, H. J. (1991). Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, H. J. (1999). Measuring space-time accessibility benefits within transportation networks: Basic theory and computational procedures. Geographical Analysis, 31(2), 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, H. J. (2005). A measurement theory for time geography. Geographical Analysis, 37(1), 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, H. J. (2007). Place-based versus people-based geographic information science. Geography Compass, 1, 503–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, H. J. (2014). Activity-based analysis. In M. M. Fischer, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Science (pp. 741–758). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, H. J., & Goodchild, M. F. (2014). Data-driven geography. GeoJournal.Google Scholar
  28. Neutens, T., Van de Weghe, N., Witlox, F., & De Maeyer, P. (2008). A three-dimensional network-based space-time prism. Journal of Geographical Systems, 10(1), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perry, M., Sheth, A. A. P., Hakimpour, F., & Jain, P. (2007). Supporting complex thematic, spatial and temporal queries over semantic web data. GeoSpatial Semantics, 228–246.Google Scholar
  30. Perry M. S. (2008). A framework to support spatial, temporal and thematic analytics over semantic web data. Wright State University.Google Scholar
  31. Roche, S. (2014). Geographic information science I: Why does a smart city need to be spatially enabled? Progress in Human Geography, 38(5), 703–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sengupta, S., Ganeshan, K. V. V., & Sarda, N. L. (2010). Developing IITB smart campusGIS grid. In Proceedings of the 1st Amrita ACM-W Celebration on Women in Computing in India—A2CWiC’10 (pp. 1–8). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  33. Shaw, S.-L., & Yu, H. (2009). A GIS-based time-geographic approach of studying individual activities and interactions in a hybrid physical–virtual space. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, B., & Grenon, P. (2004). The cornucopia of formal-ontological relations. Dialectica, 58(4), 279–296.Google Scholar
  35. Sowa, J. F. (1999). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  36. Stewart, K., Fan, J., & White, E. (2013). Thinking about space-time connections: Spatiotemporal scheduling of individual activities. Transactions in GIS, 791–807.Google Scholar
  37. Wang, M., & Ng, J. W. P. (2012). Intelligent mobile cloud education: Smart anytime-anywhere learning for the next generation campus environment. In 2012 Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Environments (pp. 149–156). IEEE.Google Scholar
  38. Yin, L., & Shaw, S.-L. (2015, September). Exploring space-time paths in physical and social closeness spaces: a space-time GIS approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 1–20.Google Scholar
  39. Yu, H. (2006). Spatio-temporal GIS design for exploring interactions of human activities. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 33(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations