SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences / 2018 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3

Possible contributions of spatial semantic methods and technologies to multi-representation spatial database paradigm

Abdulkadir MEMDUHOGLU
Melih BASARANER
Pages
108–118
Publication Date
2018-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Some examples are also given to illustrate the concept.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Today, the amount and variety of spatial data have increased dramatically.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To able to meet the demands of different spatial applications, multi-source and heterogeneous spatial datasets need to be integrated as well as the consistency of these datasets needs to be maintained.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Some examples are also given to illustrate the concept.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Spatial Semantics · Multi-Representation Spatial Databases · Semantic Interoperability

Abstract

Today, the amount and variety of spatial data have increased dramatically. In addition, the web has made it easier to disseminate and share this kind of data. Therefore, spatial data integration and interoperability have gained more importance. Spatial data are collected from different sources and often heterogeneous in terms of the levels of detail and the points of view. To able to meet the demands of different spatial applications, multi-source and heterogeneous spatial datasets need to be integrated as well as the consistency of these datasets needs to be maintained. In this context, multirepresentation spatial database (MRSDB) paradigm has been suggested by researchers. However, the heterogeneity constitutes a significant barrier in this respect and hence the implementations have so far been remained within a rather narrow scope. In this article, it is mainly discussed about the possible contributions of basic methods and technologies of spatial semantics such as ontologies, semantic web and linked data to the data integration for creating a MRSBD. Some examples are also given to illustrate the concept.

🔖

Cite This Article

MEMDUHOGLU, A., BASARANER, M. (2018). Possible contributions of spatial semantic methods and technologies to multi-representation spatial database paradigm. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3, 108–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/929668

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Annoni, A., Friis-Christensen, A., Lucchi, R. and Lutz, M., 2008. Requirements and challenges for building a European spatial information infrastructure: INSPIRE, In Creating Spatial Information Infrastructures: Towards the Spatial Semantic Web (van Oosterom P. and Zlatanova S., Eds.), CRC Press,
  2. Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Auer, S., Lehmann J. and Hellmann S., 2009. Linkedgeodata: Adding a spatial dimension to the web of data, 8th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2009),
  3. Washington, DC, USA, pp. 731-746.
  4. Basaraner, M., 2012. An investigation of semantic, geometric and graphic heterogeneities of building and facility objects in a multi-resolution spatial database, Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Cartography and GIS, Albena, Bulgaria. Basaraner, M., 2013. Taxonomies of building objects towards topographic and thematic geo-ontologies, 26th International Cartographic Conference, Dresden, Germany. Basaraner, M., 2016. Revisiting cartography: towards identifying and developing a modern and comprehensive framework, Geocarto International, 31(1), 71–91.
  5. Beckett, D. and McBride, B., 2004. RDF/XML syntax specification (revised), W3C Recommendation, W3C Consortium. Bedard, Y. and Bernier E., 2002. Supporting multiple representations with spatial databases views management and the concept of VUEL, ISPRS/ICA Joint Workshop on Multi-Scale Representations of Spatial Data, Ottawa, USA, pp. 1–14.
  6. Benslimane, D., Vangenot C., Roussey C. and Arara A., 2003.
  7. Multirepresentation in ontologies, Proceedings of Advances in Databases and Information Systems: 7th East European Conference (ADBIS 2003) (Kalinichenko, L., Manthey, R., Thalheim, B. and Wloka, U., Eds.), Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, Dresden, Germany. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler J. and Lassila O., 2001.
  8. The semantic Web, Scientific American, 284(5), 28–37.
  9. Bishr, A. Y., Pundt H., Kuhn W. and Radwan, M., 1999. Probing the concept of information communities-a first step toward semantic interoperability, in Interoperating geographic information systems Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 55-69.
  10. Brodaric, B., 2017. Interoperability of Representations, in International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology (Richardson, D., Castree, N., Goodchild, M. F., Kobayashi, A., Liu, W. and Marston, R. A., Eds.) Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 1–18.
  11. Brodeur, J., 2012. Geosemantic interoperability and the geospatial semantic web, In Springer Handbook of Geographic Information (Kresse