Advocacy for External Quality in GIS

  • Christelle Pierkot
  • Esteban Zimányi
  • Yuan Lin
  • Thérèse Libourel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6631)


Nowadays, geographical resources (both data and applications) are increasingly being accessible via search engines or web services. As a consequence, users must choose among a set of available resources the ones that best fit their needs. However, users neophytes are currently unable to determine a priori (i.e., before acquisition and use), whether a resource is adequate for its intended usage. Although metadata, if available, allow users to obtain information about internal data quality, this metadata is specified in terms of the data producer, who does not know all the intended uses for the resource. This information is not sufficient for users to evaluate the quality of resources in relation to their needs, i.e., the external quality. In this paper, we propose a method that takes into account the user profile, the application domain, the requirements, and intended use to assess, a priori, the quality of the resources.


User Requirement External Quality Pollution Index Ontology Match User Objective 
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.
    Abadie, N., Mechouche, A., Mustière, S.: OWL based formalisation of geographic databases specifications. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Poster, Lisbon, Portugal (October 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agumya, A., Hunter, G.: Fitness for use: Reducing the impact of geographic information uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the URISA Anual Conference, Charlotte, NC, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conte-Tisnerat, Y., Ali, H.E., Gasc, F., Heridi, H.: Qualité externe des données, ontologie des usages. Technical report, UM3, LIRMM, Projet Tutoré, Master TSAD SIIG3T (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    David, B., Fasquel, P.: Qualité d’une base de données géographique: concepts et terminologie. Technical report, IGN, Bulletin d’information n.67 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desconnets, J.-C., Libourel, T., Clerc, S., Granouillac, B.: Cataloguing for distribution of environmental resources. In: Proceedings of the 10th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Aalborg, Denmark (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devillers, R., Jeansoulin, R. (eds.): Fundamentals of spatial data quality. Geographical Information Systems series, ISTE (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Devillers, R., Jeansoulin, R.: Spatial data quality: Concepts. In: [6], ch. 2, pp. 31–42Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guptill, S., Morisson, J.L. (eds.): Elements of Spatial Data Quality. Pergamon Press Inc., Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gutiérrez, C., Servigne, S.: Métadonnées et qualité pour les systémes de surveillance en temps-réel. Revue Internationale de Géomatique 19(2), 151–168 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harding, J.: Vector data quality: A data provider’s perpective. In: Devillers, R., Jeansoulin, R. (eds.) [6], ch. 8, pp. 141–160Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, G., Bruin, S.D.: A case study in the use of risk management to assess decision quality. In: Devillers, R., Jeansoulin, R. (eds.) [6], ch. 14, pp. 271–282Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jureta, I.J., Mylopoulos, J., Faulkner, S.: A core ontology for requirements. Applied Ontology 4(3-4), 169–244 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laaribi, A., Chevallier, J., Martel, J.: Spatial decision aid: A multicriterion evaluation approach. Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 20(6), 351–366 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S., Zimányi, E.: The MurMur project: Modeling and querying multi-represented spatio-temporal databases. Information Systems 31(8), 733–769 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pierkot, C.: Vers un usage éclairé de la donnée géographique. In: Actes de l’atelier Qualité des Données et des Connaissances de EGC 2010, Hammamet, Tunisie (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prantner, K., Ding, Y., Luger, M., Yan, Z., Herzog, C.: Tourism ontology and semantic management system: State-of-the-arts analysis. In: Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2007, Vila Real, Portugal, pp. 111–115 (October 2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuurman, N., Leszczynski, A.: Ontology-based metadata. Transactions in GIS 10(5), 709–726 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasseur, B., Jeansoulin, R., Devillers, R., Frank, A.: External quality evaluation of geographical applications: An ontological approach. In: Devillers, R., Jeansoulin, R. (eds.) [6], ch. 13, pp. 255–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christelle Pierkot
    • 1
  • Esteban Zimányi
    • 2
  • Yuan Lin
    • 3
  • Thérèse Libourel
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.UMR ESPACE-DEV (IRD-UM2)MontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Université Libre de BruxellesBelgium
  3. 3.LIRMMMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations