Advertisement

iRank: Integral Ranking of Geographical Information by Semantic, Geographic, and Topological Matching

  • Felix Mata
  • Serguei Levachkine
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Previous geographic information retrieval (GIR) works have used different criteria of a geographical nature to rank the documents retrieved from heterogeneous repositories. The most common approaches consider the characteristics and relationships process the documents in a separate way (only using their geometric or topologic aspects). In addition, they do not take into account the nature of geographic data (spatial semantics) in the weighting and ranking process which limits the assessment of document relevance. Nevertheless, the ranking can be improved by using approaches in tegrating the essence and nature of geographical space, i.e., (1) geographical attributes, (2) topological relationships, and (3) spatialsemantics that are focused on conceptually describing a geographic object. This paper outlines iRank, a method that integrates these three aspects to rank a document. iRank evaluates documents using three sources of information: GeoOntologies, dictionaries, and topology files. The approach consists of three stages which define the geographical relevance between a query and a document. In the first stage, the relevance is computed by using concepts (GeoOntologies), the second stage uses geographic attributes (dictionaries), and in the last stage, the relevance is processed by considering spatial relation-ships (vector files). Thus, the major iRank advantage is integral ranking. The results received by the authors show a better ranking with these criteria than ones that use them separately.

Keywords

Integral ranking Geographic information retrieval GeoOntology Spatial semantics Topological and conceptual matching Gazetteers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Egenhofer MJ and Mark D (2001) Naive geography. In Frank AU and Kuhn W, (eds) Spatial Information Theory: a theoretical basis for GIS, vol 988 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 1-16. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones CB, Alani H, and Tudhope D (2001) Geographical information retrieval with ontologies of place. In Proceedings of COSIT-2001, Spatial Information Theory Foundations of Geographic Information ScienceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nedas K, Egenhofer M (1995) Spatial similarity queries with logical operators. In STD’03 Eighth International Symposium on Spatial and Temporal DatabasesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larson R (1995) Geographic information retrieval and spatial browsing. Geographic Information Systems and Libraries: Patrons, Maps, and Spatial Information, pp 81-123Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaid S, Jones CB, Joho H, Sanderson M (2005) Spatio-textual indexing for geographical search on the web. In Proceedings of the 9th Int. Symp. on Spatial and Temporal Databases (SSTD), LNCS, vol. 3633, pp 218-235Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mata F (2007) Geographic Information Retrieval by Topological, Geographical, and Conceptual Matching, Second International Conference, GeoS 2007, Proceedings. LCNS 4853 Springer 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-76875-3, Mexico City, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B (1999) Modern Information Retrieval. ACM Press Series/Addison Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levachkine S, Guzman-Arenas A (2007) Hierarchy as a new data type for qualitative variables: J Expert Systems with Applications 32(3):899-910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones C, Abdelmoty AI, Fu G (2003) Maintaining ontologies for geographical information retrieval on the web. In Proceedings of on The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: coopIS, doa, and odbase Ontologies, Databases and Applications of Semantics, odbase’03, LNCS, vol. 2888Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clementini E, di Felice P, and van Oosterom P (1993) A Small Set of Formal Topological Relations Suitable for End-User Interaction. In LNCS 692: Proc. 3rd Int. Symposium on Advances in Spatial Databases, pp 277-295Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fu G, Jones CB, Abdelmoty AI (2005) Ontology-based spatial query expansion in Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of In On the Move to Meaningful Inter-net Systems 2005: ODBASE 2005, LNCS, pp 1466-1482, vol 3761Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belussi A, Catania B, Modesta P (2005) Towards Topological Consistency and Similarity of Multiresolution Geographical Maps GIS’05, Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill L (2000) Core elements of digital gazetteers: Placenames, categories and footprints Borbinha, J and Baker T (eds) Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones CB, Harith A, Tudhope D (2001) Geographic Information Retrieval with ontologies of place Montello DR (ed): Spatial Information Theory. Foundations of Geographic Information Science. International Conference, COSIT 2001, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burns H, Egenhofer M (1996) Similarity of Spatial Scenes. In Processing 7thInternational Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, pp 31-42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andrade L, Silva M (2006) Relevance Ranking for Geographic IR, Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval, USA. SIGIRGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PIIG Lab-Centre for Computing ResearchNational Polytechnic InstituteMéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations