Encyclopedia of GIS

2017 Edition
| Editors: Shashi Shekhar, Hui Xiong, Xun Zhou

Semantic Kriging

  • Shrutilipi Bhattacharjee
  • Soumya K. Ghosh
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17885-1_1577

Synonyms

Definition

Advancement of technology in the field of remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) has introduced a significant amount of research challenges. Proper staging of the spatial data is necessary as geospatial repositories contain missing and erroneous information. Therefore, prediction of meteorological parameters with better accuracy is an indispensable task required for most of the applications related to weather/climatological analysis. The geostatistical interpolation methods are often considered to be the most preferred and appropriate methods for the prediction of meteorological parameters (such as land surface temperature (LST), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), moisture stress index (MSI), etc.), which yield minimal error. The methods based on regression exhibit better performance as the autocorrelation within the region of interest (RoI) is modeled and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bhattacharjee S, Dwivedi A, Prasad RR, Ghosh SK (2012) Ontology based spatial clustering framework for implicit knowledge discovery. In: Annual IEEE India conference (INDICON), pp 561–566, KochiGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharjee S, Ghosh SK (2014) Performance evaluation of semantic kriging: a Euclidean vector analysis approach. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 12(6): 1185–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharjee S, Ghosh SK (2015) Time-series augmentation of semantic kriging for the prediction of meteorological parameters. In: IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), Milan, pp 4562–4565Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharjee S, Mitra P, Ghosh SK (2014) Spatial interpolation to predict missing attributes in GIS using semantic kriging. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 52(8):4771–4780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharjee S, Prasad RR, Dwivedi A, Dasgupta A, Ghosh SK (2012) Ontology based framework for semantic resolution of geospatial query. In: 12th international conference on intelligent systems design and applications (ISDA), Kochi, pp 437–442Google Scholar
  6. Brus DJ, de Gruijter JJ, Marsman BA, Visschers BA, Bregt AK, Breeuwsma A (1996) The performance of spatial interpolation methods and Choropleth maps to estimate properties at points: a soil survey case study. Environmetrics 7:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franzen DW, Peck TR (1995) Field soil sampling density for variable rate fertilization. J Prod Agric 8(4): 568–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(5):907–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karydas CG, Gitas IZ, Koutsogiannaki E, Lydakis-Simantiris N, Silleos G et al (2009) Evaluation of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping agricultural topsoil properties in crete. EARSeL eProceedings 8(1):26–39Google Scholar
  10. Kravchenko A (2003) Influence of spatial structure on accuracy of interpolation methods. Soil Sci Soc Am 67(5):1564–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li J, Heap AD (2008) A review of spatial interpolation methods for environmental scientists. Geoscience, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  12. Li J, Heap AD (2011) A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: performance and impact factors. Ecol Inf 6(3):228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mueller T, Pusuluri N, Mathias K, Cornelius P, Barnhisel R, Shearer S (2004) Map quality for ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted interpolation. Soil Sci Soc Am 68(6):2042–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nalder IA, Wein RW (1998) Spatial interpolation of climatic normals: test of a new method in the Canadian boreal forest. Agri For Meteorol 92(4):211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruddick R (2007) Data interpolation methods in the geoscience Australia seascape maps. Geoscience, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  16. Schloeder C, Zimmerman N, Jacobs M (2001) Comparison of methods for interpolating soil properties using limited data. Soil Sci Soc Am 65(2):470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Kuilenburg J, De Gruijter JJ, Marsman BA, Bouma J (1982) Accuracy of spatial interpolation between point data on soil moisture supply capacity, compared with estimates from mapping units. Geoderma 27:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weisz R, Fleischer S, Smilowitz Z (1995) Map generation in high-value horticultural integrated pest management: appropriate interpolation methods for site-specific pest management of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol 88(6):1650–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yasrebi J, Saffari M, Fathi H, Karimian N, Moazallahi M, Gazni R et al (2009) Evaluation and comparison of ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighting methods for prediction of spatial variability of some soil chemical parameters. Res J Biol Sci 4(1):93–102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia