Advertisement

Representing, Manipulating and Reasoning with Geographic Semantics within a Knowledge Framework

  • James O’Brien
  • Mark Gahegan

Abstract

This paper describes a programmatic framework for representing, manipulating and reasoning with geographic semantics. The framework enables automating tool selection for user defined geographic problem solving, and evaluating semantic change in knowledge discovery environments. Methods, data, and human experts (our resources) uses, inputs, outputs, and semantic changes are described using ontologies. These ontological descriptions are manipulated by an expert system to select resources to solve a user-defined problem. A semantic description of the problem is compared to the services that each entity can provide to construct a graph of potential solutions. An optimal (least cost) solution is extracted from these solutions, and displayed in real-time. The semantic change(s) resulting from the interaction of resources within the optimal solution are determined via expressions of transformation semantics represented within the Java Expert System Shell. This description represents the formation history of each new information product (e.g. a map or overlay) and can be stored, indexed and searched as required. Examples are presented to show (1) the construction and visualization of information products, (2) the reasoning capabilities of the system to find alternative ways to produce information products from a set of data methods and expertise, given certain constraints and (3) the representation of the ensuing semantic changes by which an information product is synthesized.

Keywords

West Nile Virus Minimal Span Tree Human Expert Domain Ontology Geographic Information System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abel, D.J., Taylor, K., Ackland, R., and Hungerford, S. 1998, An Exploration of GIS Architectures for Internet Environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 22(1) pp 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht, J., 1994. Universal elementary GIS tasks-beyond low-level commands. In Waugh T C and Healey R G (eds) Sixth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling: 209–22.Google Scholar
  3. Bishr, Y., 1997. Semantic aspects of interoperable GIS. Ph.D Dissertation Thesis, Enschede, The Netherlands, 154 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bishr, Y., 1998. Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12(4): 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodaric, B. and Gahegan, M., 2002. Distinguishing Instances and Evidence of Geographical Concepts for Geospatial Database Design. In: M.J. Egenhofer and D.M. Mark (Editors), GIScience 2002. Lecture Notes in Computing Science 2478. Springer-Verlag, pp. 22–37.Google Scholar
  6. Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R. and Benjamins, V.R., 1997. Ontology of Tasks and Methods, AAAI Spring Symposium.Google Scholar
  7. Egenhofer, M., 2002. Toward the semantic geospatial web, Tenth ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, McLean, Virginia, USA, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  8. Fabrikant, S.I. and Buttenfield, B.P., 2001. Formalizing Semantic Spaces for Information Access. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2): 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Geographic Data Committee. FGDC-STD-001-1998. Content standard for digital geospatial metadata (revised June 1998). Federal Geographic Data Committee. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Fonseca, F.T., 2001. Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, The University of Maine, 131 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Fonseca, F.T., Egenhofer, M.J., Jr., C.A.D. and Borges, K.A.V., 2000. Ontologies and knowledge sharing in urban GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24: 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fonseca, F.T. and Egenhofer, M.J., 1999. Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems. In: C.B. Medeiros (Editor), 7th ACM Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Kansas City, MO, pp. 7.Google Scholar
  13. Gahegan, M., Takatsuka, M., Wheeler, M. and Hardisty, F., 2002. Introducing GeoVISTA Studio: an integrated suite of visualization and computational methods for exploration and knowledge construction in geography. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26: 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gahegan, M. N. (1999). Characterizing the semantic content of geographic data, models, and systems. In Interoperating Geographic Information Systems (Eds. Goodchild, M.F., Egenhofer, M. J. Fegeas, R. and Kottman, C. A.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
  15. Gahegan, M. N. (1996). Specifying the transformations within and between geographic data models. Transactions in GIS, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 137–152.Google Scholar
  16. Guarino, N., 1997a. Semantic Matching: Formal Ontological Distinctions for Information Organization, Extraction, and Integration. In: M.T. Pazienza (Editor), Information Extraction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to an Emerging Information Technology. Springer Verlag, pp. 139–170.Google Scholar
  17. Guarino, N., 1997b. Understanding, building and using ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46: 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hakimpour, F. and Timpf, S., 2002. A Step towards GeoData Integration using Formal Ontologies. In: M. Ruiz, M. Gould and J. Ramon (Editors), 5th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science. Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, pp. 5.Google Scholar
  19. Honda, K. and Mizoguchi, F., 1995. Constraint-based approach for automatic spatial layout planning. 11th conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications, Los Angeles, CA. p38.Google Scholar
  20. Kokla, M. and Kavouras, M., 2002. Theories of Concepts in Resolving Semantic Heterogeneities, 5th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Palma, Spain, pp. 2.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, W., 2002. Modeling the Semantics of Geographic Categories through Conceptual Integration. In: M.J. Egenhofer and D.M. Mark (Editors), GIScience 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. MacEachren, A.M., in press. An evolving cognitive-semiotic approach to geographic visualization and knowledge construction. Information Design Journal.Google Scholar
  23. Mark, D., Egenhofer, M., Hirtle, S. and Smith, B., 2002. Ontological Foundations for Geographic Information Science. UCGIS Emerging Resource Theme.Google Scholar
  24. Pascoe R.T and Penny J.P. (1995) Constructing interfaces between (and within) geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9:p275.Google Scholar
  25. Pundt, H. and Bishr, Y., 2002. Domain ontologies for data sharing-an example from environmental monitoring using field GIS. Computers & Geosciences, 28: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, B. and Mark, D.M., 2001. Geographical categories: an ontological investigation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(7): 591–612.Google Scholar
  27. Sotnykova, A., 2001. Design and Implementation of Federation of Spatio-Temporal Databases: Methods and Tools, Centre de Recherche Public — Henri Tudor and Laboratoire de Bases de Donnees Database Laboratory.Google Scholar
  28. Sowa, J. F., 2000, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations (USA: Brooks/Cole).Google Scholar
  29. Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G., 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 133–187.Google Scholar
  30. Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G. and Vogele, T., 2002. Ontologies for geographic information processing. Computers & Geosciences, 28: 103–117.Google Scholar
  31. MacEachren, A.M., in press. An evolving cognitive-semiotic approach to geographic visualization and knowledge construction. Information Design Journal.Google Scholar
  32. Mark, D., Egenhofer, M., Hirtle, S. and Smith, B., 2002. Ontological Foundations for Geographic Information Science. UCGIS Emerging Resource Theme.Google Scholar
  33. Pascoe R.T and Penny J.P. (1995) Constructing interfaces between (and within) geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9:p275.Google Scholar
  34. Pundt, H. and Bishr, Y., 2002. Domain ontologies for data sharing-an example from environmental monitoring using field GIS. Computers & Geosciences, 28: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, B. and Mark, D.M., 2001. Geographical categories: an ontological investigation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(7):591–612.Google Scholar
  36. Sotnykova, A., 2001. Design and Implementation of Federation of Spatio-Temporal Databases: Methods and Tools, Centre de Recherche Public — Henri Tudor and Laboratoire de Bases de Donnees Database Laboratory.Google Scholar
  37. Sowa, J. F., 2000, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations (USA: Brooks/Cole).Google Scholar
  38. Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G., 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 133–187.Google Scholar
  39. Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G. and Vogele, T., 2002. Ontologies for geographic information processing. Computers & Geosciences, 28: 103–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • James O’Brien
    • 1
  • Mark Gahegan
    • 1
  1. 1.GeoVISTA Center, Department of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations