Advertisement

iRank: Ranking Geographical Information by Conceptual, Geographic and Topologic Similarity

  • Felix Mata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5892)

Abstract

Geographic Information Ranking consists of measuring if a document (answer) is relevant to a spatial query. It is done by comparing characteristics in common between document and query. The most popular approaches compare just one aspect of geographical data (geographic properties, topology, among others). It limits the assessment of document relevance. Nevertheless, it can be improved when key characteristics of geographical objects are considered in the ranking (1) geographical attributes, (2) topological relations, and (3) geographical concepts. In this paper, we outline iRank a method that integrates these three aspects to rank a document. Ourapproach evaluates documents from three sources of information: GeoOntologies, dictionaries, and topology files. Relevance is measured according to three stages. In the first stage, the relevance is computed by processing concepts; in second stage relevance is calculated using geographic attributes. In the last stage, the relevance is measured by computing topologic relations. Thus, the main contribution of iRank is show that integration of three ranking criteria is better than when they are used in separate way.

Keywords

Geographical Information Ranking Geographic Information Retrieval GeoOntology Spatial Semantics Topological and Conceptual similarity Geo-Spatial Relevance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Egenhofer, M.J., Mark, D.: Naive geography. In: Kuhn, W., Frank, A.U. (eds.) COSIT 1995. LNCS, vol. 988, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones, C.B., Alani, H., Tudhope, D.: Geographical information retrieval with ontologies of place. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, p. 322. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nedas, K., Egenhofer, M.: Spatial similarity queries with logical operators. In: Hadzilacos, T., Manolopoulos, Y., Roddick, J., Theodoridis, Y. (eds.) SSTD 2003. LNCS, vol. 2750. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larson, R.: Geographic information retrieval and spatial browsing. In: Geographic Information Systems and Libraries: Patrons, Maps, and Spatial Information, pp. 81–123 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaid, S., Jones, C., Joho, H., Sanderson, M.: Spatio-textual indexing for geographical search on the web. In: Bauzer Medeiros, C., Egenhofer, M.J., Bertino, E. (eds.) SSTD 2005. LNCS, vol. 3633, pp. 218–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mata, F.: Geographic Information Retrieval by Topological, Geographical, and Conceptual Matching. In: Fonseca, F., Rodríguez, M.A., Levashkin, S. (eds.) GeoS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4853, pp. 98–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baeza-Yates, R., Ribeiro-Neto, B.: Modern Information Retrieval. ACM Press Series/Addison Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levachkine, S., Guzman-Arenas, A.: Hierarchy as a new data type for qualitative variables. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal 32(3), 899–910 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, C., Abdelmoty, A., Fu, G.: Maintaining ontologies for geographical information retrieval on the web. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) CoopIS 2003, DOA 2003, and ODBASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 934–951. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clementini, E., di Felice, P., van Oosterom, P.: A Small Set of Formal Topological Relations Suitable for End-User Interaction. In: Abel, D.J., Ooi, B.-C. (eds.) SSD 1993. LNCS, vol. 692, pp. 277–295. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fu, G., Jones, C.B., Abdelmoty, A.I.: Ontology-based spatial query expansion in Information Retrieval. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3761, pp. 1466–1482. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belussi, A., Catania, B., Modesta, P.: Towards Topological Consistency and Similarity of Multiresolution Geographical Maps. In: GIS 2005, Bremen, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill, L.: Core elements of digital gazetteers: Placenames, categories and footprints. In: Borbinha, J.L., Baker, T. (eds.) ECDL 2000. LNCS, vol. 1923, p. 280. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, C.B., Harith, A., Tudhope, D.: Geographic Information Retrieval with ontologies of place. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, p. 322. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burns, H., Egenhofer, M.: Similarity of Spatial Scenes. In: Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Spatial Data Handling, pp. 31–42 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andrade, L., Silva, M.: Relevance Ranking for Geographic IR. In: Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval, SIGIR, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hobona, G., James, P., Fairbairn, D.: Multidimensional visualisation of degrees of relevance of geographic data. International Journal of Geographic Information Science 20(5), 469–490 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Mata
    • 1
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Professional Unit in Engineering and Advanced TecnologiesNational Polytechnic InstituteMéxico

Personalised recommendations