An Ontology Design Pattern for Surface Water Features

Sinha, Gaurav; Mark, David; Kolas, Dave; Varanka, Dalia E.; Romero, Boleslo E.; Feng, Chen‐Chieh; Usery, E. Lynn; Liebermann, Joshua; Sorokine, Alexandre

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11593-1_13

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…a river's water (as a whole object) can have properties distinct from its containing river channel or changing water matter parts, as it can rise without the channel rising and its Hydro ontology engineering. Existing hydro ontologies and geospatial feature catalogs focus primarily on inland surface water features, with groundwater features typically a secondary concern (Buttigieg et al, 2016;Feng et al, 2004;Galton and Mizoguchi, 2009;Duce and Krzysztof, 2010;Santos et al, 2005;Varanka and Usery, 2015;Sinha et al, 2014;Wellen and Sieber, 2013;Tripathi and Babaie, 2008;Raskin and Pan, 2005). The key aspects of a water feature are not all distinguished by any one approach, and the complete range of representative water features is not delineated.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both cases can be found in water ontologies, as water feature descriptions vary widely and the entities measured by predominant types of water sensors are not fully discriminated. Examples of this can be found when comparing international water data standards (Boisvert and Brodaric, 2012;Brodaric et al, 2018;Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), 2018;INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Geology, 2013;INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Hydrography, 2014), national catalogs of hydrographic features (Duce and Krzysztof, 2010), ontological considerations (Galton and Mizoguchi, 2009;Santos et al, 2005;Sinha et al, 2014;Wellen and Sieber, 2013), and hydro database structures (Maidment and Morehouse, 2002;Strassberg et al, 2011). At the heart of the problem is a disparity about the fundamental nature of a water feature, as different aspects are variously present and diversely represented in distinct ontologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water features and their parts

Brodaric

Hahmann

Grüninger

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water features such as rivers, clouds, and aquifers are primarily understood from sensor measurements. Ontologies for the hydro domain play a key role in describing sensor measurements, particularly to aid water data interoperability, but water features are under-represented in such ontologies. In this paper we build upon existing work in hydro ontologies to enhance the characterization and representation of water features. An enhanced theory of physical object parthood is developed that enables water features to be characterized as wholes with various essential parts, building on Fine's theory of parts and Hayes' ontology of liquids. The results are represented as a formal extension of the DOLCE ontology, and advance the HyFO reference ontology for the hydro domain. . B. Brodaric et al. / Water featuresheight remains despite the departure of specific water matter amounts. The key aspects of a river that are thus differentiated by Fine include its water object, container, amounts of water matter and their flow. However, a river is not identified with any of these key aspects and the exact nature of the relationship between a river and each aspect is not explicitly addressed, as river ontology is not the focus of the work.Applied ontology. The ontology of fluids (Hayes, 1985) recognizes two more key aspects: (1) the void hosted by a container, such as the space in a river channel, and (2) the supporting entity holding up the water, such as a riverbed. Water features are then variously identified with a key aspect, initially with the void and then with the water object. In both cases the identification is problematic, as it implies, for example, contrary persistence conditions in the case of the void, because a river would then exist whenever its channel space exists, and it precludes the existence of dry rivers in the water object case. Whole-part relations are also not used to connect a water feature to its key aspects, such as a river to its container or void, though relations for the support, containment, connectivity, and movement of water matter appear fundamental.The emphasis on water movement is elevated in a process-oriented approach, in which the processes enacted by an object are essential to its identity and existence, with notable examples including waterfalls and rivers Mizoguchi, 2009). However, voids (Casati andVarzi, 1994;Hahmann and Brodaric, 2012) do not play a significant role in the makeup of a water feature in this approach, water features are not clearly differentiated from water objects, and tying water feature identity to enacted processes results in water features that do not exist when the processes stop or pause, e.g. if the water stops running then the hydraulic erosion of the river channel also stops, thus the river does not exist in dry periods.The potential to differentiate water features from water objects is evident in related work on quantities, such as fluids (Guizzardi, 2010), where a wine vintage is delineated from its wine matter amounts and containers. However, a vintage is ...

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water features and their parts

Brodaric

Hahmann

Grüninger

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Galton & Mizoguchi 2009;Santos et al 2005;Sinha et al 2014;Wellen & Sieber, 2013) individually incorporate some, but not all, of the seemingly fundamental distinctions made by Hayes and Fine. In particular, the three entities emerging from the above work, namely the water feature, water body and water matter, are not distinguished by any one approach, and the complete range of representative water features is also not delineated.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research and operations in these domains are heavily dependent on digital representations of water features, but the inherent conceptualizations can vary widely. Examples of heterogeneity abound, and can be found when comparing international water data standards (Boisvert & Brodaric 2012;Dornblut & Atkinson 2013;INSPIRE 2013;2014), national catalogs of hydrographic features (Duce & Janowicz 2010), ontological considerations (Galton & Mizoguchi 2009;Santos et al 2005;Sinha et al 2014;Wellen & Sieber 2013), and database structures (Maidment, 2002;Strassberg, et al, 2011). This is problematic as it inhibits some uses, especially their integration, which is typically an important precursor to regional scientific analysis such as water availability, or complex societal decision-making such as water allotment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ontological Analysis of Water Features

Brodaric¹,

Hahmann²,

Grüninger³

2016

GIScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water features are understood and represented heterogeneously in a wide variety of settings, including in data standards, polices and regulations, and amongst different cultures and languages. Ontologies aim to reduce this heterogeneity by representing commonalities across such settings. In this paper we build upon existing work in hydro ontologies and philosophical ontology to enhance the conceptualization and representation of water features. This results in a new taxonomy for water features, which helps identify and organize their essential parts. The results are represented as a first-order logic extension of the DOLCE ontology as well as an independent ontology fragment, and these are intended to serve as a reference ontology for the hydro domain as well as an aid to data interoperability.

show abstract

“…Sinha, Gaurav, et al [17] developed the Surface Water ontology design pattern both for domain knowledge distillation and to serve as a conceptual building-block for more complex or specialized surface water ontologies. A distinction is made in this ontology between landscape features that act as containers (e.g., stream channels, basins) and the bodies of water (e.g., rivers, lakes) that occupy those containers.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

World Geographical Ontology Model

Houby¹

2015

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent days have witnessed an explosive growth in generating data in geographic domain which leads to increasing the applications of geographical information system (GIS). Due to this increasing of GIS, GIS faced the problem of effective management of the spatial information from different resources and in different forms. So, Geographical ontologies have been introduced to the geographical domain not only as a concept model which can represent objects on semantic and knowledge level, but also to integrate geographical data from different sources and in different forms for reasoning and to facilitate knowledge sharing, in addition to assist in recognizing spatial terms.In this research, the World geographical ontology model has been developed to meet the needs of the recognition of the terminologies and the semantic relationships between geographical terms related to any location in the world. It will enable search engine to perform a spatially aware search. The design of World ontology model has been developed based on the analysis and finding relations between different parts of World locations to adopt ontology concepts. Logical formulation has been used to describe the ontology to be able to infer more intelligent relations. Then the model has been implemented using protégé tool, a sample of related data has been collected and finally the system has been tested. Query answers integrate data from different sources.

show abstract

An Ontology Design Pattern for Surface Water Features

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Water features and their parts

Water features and their parts

An Ontological Analysis of Water Features

World Geographical Ontology Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About