Advertisement

Semantic Similarity Applied to Geomorphometric Analysis of Digital Elevation Model

  • Marco Moreno-IbarraEmail author
  • Serguei Levachkine
  • Miguel Torres
  • Rolando Quintero
  • Giovanni Guzman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to measure the semantic similarity between digital elevation model (DEMs). We compute a semantic “distance” between concepts in hierarchical structure of geomorphologic application ontology. The method is composed of two stages: analysis and measurement. Analysis stage is focused on performing a geomorphometric analysis: a qualitative value (descriptor) representing a concept in ontology is assigned to each DEM’s cell. Measurement stage is based on a comparison between the descriptors of two DEMs. In other words, we measure the semantic “distance” (called herein confusion) between two ontology concepts. The similarity is defined at two levels of measurement: local and global. The first one is defined at cell-level value and the second one considers the entire cells in a DEM. Thus, the similarity between two DEMs at the conceptual level is established. For instance, our methodology can detect that two DEMs share the same or similar geomorphologic features: plateau, downhill, etc.

Keywords

Semantic similarity Digital elevation models Ontology Geomorphometric analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rudner M, Biedermann R, Schroder B, Kleyer B, (2007) Integrated Grid Based Ecological and Economic (INGRID) landscape model. A tool to support landscape management decisions. J Environmental Modelling & Software 22(2): 177-187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saadat H, Bonnell R, Sharifi F, Mehuys G, Namdar M, Ale-Ebrahim S (2008) Landform classification from a digital elevation model and satellite imagery, Geomorphology, In PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain Analysis- Principles and Applications. John Willey & Sons, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaplot V, Darboux F, Bourennane H, Leguedois S Silvera N, Phachomphon K (2006) Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density. J Geomorphology 77(1-2): 126-141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonk R (2002) Scale-dependent Geomorphometric Analysis for Glacier Mapping at Nanga Parbat: GRASS GIS Approach. In: Proceedings of the Open source GIS - GRASS User’s conference 2002, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodríguez A and Egenhofer M (2004) Comparing Geospatial Entity Classes: An Asymmetric and Context-Dependent Similarity Measure. J International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18(3): 229-256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahlqvist O (2005) Using semantic similarity metrics to uncover category and land cover change. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3799, pp 107-119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirtle S (2007) Similarity Matching for Emergency Evacuation Workshop on Semantic Similarity Measurement at the Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2007), Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levachkine S and Guzman A (2004) Hierarchies Measuring Qualitative Variables. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2945: 262-274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riley SJ, DeGloria SD, and Elliot R (1999) A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. J Intermountain Journal of Sciences 5: 23-27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moreno M, Levachkine S, Torres M and Quintero R (2004) Landform Classification in Raster Geo-Images. In: Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3287: 558-565Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levachkine S and Guzman-Arenas A (2007) Hierarchy as a new data type for qualitative variables. J Expert Systems with Applications 32(3): 899-910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Resnik P (1995) Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 448-453Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guarino N (1995) Formal ontology, conceptual analysis, and knowledge representation. J International Journal Human and Computer Studies 43: 625-640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moreno-Ibarra M (2007) Semantic Similarity Applied to Generalization of Geospatial Data. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4853: 247-255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Project Agent (1998) Selection of basic measures. http://agent.ign.fr/
  17. 17.
    Resnik P (1999) Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy: An Information-Based Measure and Its Application to Problems of Ambiguity in Natural Language. J Artificial Intelligence Research 11: 95-130Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goni A, Mena E and Illarramendi A (1998) Querying heterogeneous and distributed data repositories using ontologies. In: Charrel PJ and Jaakkola H (eds), Information Modeling and Knowledge Base IX, IOS Press, pp 19-34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Moreno-Ibarra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Serguei Levachkine
    • 1
  • Miguel Torres
    • 1
  • Rolando Quintero
    • 1
  • Giovanni Guzman
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Computing Research, National Polytechnic InstituteIntelligent Processing of Geospatial Information LaboratoryMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations