Distinguishing Instances and Evidence of Geographical Concepts for Geospatial Database Design

Brodaric, Boyan; Gahegan, Mark

doi:10.1007/3-540-45799-2_2

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, considerable research effort over recent years has been directed at the problem of formalizing, storing, and processing the ontologies and contexts associated with conceptual schemas, especially within the domain of geographic information (e.g. Brodaric andGahegan 2002, Fonseca et al 2003). Such intensional information, perhaps stored within an ontology-based information system (Guarino 1998), could potentially be incorporated into the fusion process using the same mechanism as for human domain expertise.…”

Section: Overall Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

An algebraic approach to automated geospatial information fusion

Duckham

Worboys

2005

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new technique for information fusion. Unlike most previous work on information fusion, this paper explores the use of instance-level (extensional) information within the fusion process. This paper proposes an algorithm that can be used automatically to infer the schema-level structure necessary for information fusion from instance-level information. The approach is illustrated using the example of geospatial land-cover data. The method is then extended to operate under uncertainty, such as in cases where the data are inaccurate or imprecise. The paper describes the implementation of the fusion method within a software prototype. Finally, the paper discusses several key topics for future research, including applications of this work to spatial-data mining and the semantic web.

show abstract

Section: Overall Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

An algebraic approach to automated geospatial information fusion

Duckham

Worboys

2005

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The map, ontology, and overall model are represented in a geo‐pragmatic structure that captures the discovery of the objects and concepts from their qualities (after Figures 5 and 6) and enables an entity's origins, effects and uses to be retrieved via queries (after Figure 4 and ). The structure is implemented as a schema in a GIS that links the ontology with the objects (expanding upon Brodaric and Gahegan 2002). Results from additional statistical analysis enables the schema to be populated appropriately with the field observations and inferred objects, resulting in the capture of one fieldwork perspective, three agents (geologists), each with their own version for each situated concept, and a united (perspective) concept that is shared between agents and used to label the geologic objects on the final map.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geo‐Pragmatics for the Geospatial Semantic Web

Brodaric

2007

Transactions in GIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geo‐Pragmatics is introduced here as an enhanced representation for ontologies in which geospatial, geographical and geoscientific concepts are not only defined, but their pragmatic context is also captured and potentially reasoned with. A framework for representing such context is developed using three core aspects: dimensions, agents and roles. Dimensions consist of a concept's origins, uses and effects; these are generated by the interaction of human, machine and natural agents, and involve entities with roles developed from method‐driven perspectives and epistemic‐driven versions. The relationship between these core aspects is explored conceptually and implications for geoscientific ontologies are discussed, including identification of a basic ontological type, the situated concept, whose meaning is defined by its geographical‐historical context. Geo‐pragmatics should help geoscientists evaluate the scientific merit, and fitness for scientific use, of geoscientific ontologies in emerging e‐science initiatives.

show abstract

“…By contrast to these efforts, in previous work we identify a domain-level concept type that applies only to some entities within a single domain, and only within a certain geographical and historical context (Brodaric & Gahegan, 2002). Such situated concepts are essentially historical and geographical because their meaning is dependent on actual processes (not process types) operating over entities located in specific places and times.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Experiments to Examine the Situated Nature of Geoscientific Concepts

Brodaric

Gahegan

2007

Spatial Cognition & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ontologies are being developed in many geoscientific domains. They are typically populated with two types of concepts: upper-level concepts that apply across many or all domains, and domain concepts that apply only within a specific domain. Previous work has refined this distinction by identifying a particular type of domain concept, called a situated concept, which is dependent on specific processes (natural, social, scientific, or possibly machine) for its meaning and is instantiated amongst entities within a specific geographical and historical context. In this paper we present new support for situated geoscientific concepts, building on our previous research that argues for the importance of situations in the development and use of concepts related to geoscientific field mapping. The new results are obtained by using statistical techniques to further analyze three geologists' field data over time, to better test the hypothesis that the concepts developed by the geologists to classify objects on the map are in fact situated. The field data are compared to each other, and to the concepts developed by the team. Differences found between and within individuals' data for three map concepts provide strong support for the idea that the concepts are variably influenced by data, theory, and natural and human situations. From this increased corroboration of situated concepts we suggest two implications for domain ontologies: (1) a delineation between situated domain concepts and non-situated domain concepts; and (2) recognition that representation of reliable meaning involves the capture of historical and geographical context for situated concepts.

show abstract

Distinguishing Instances and Evidence of Geographical Concepts for Geospatial Database Design

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

An algebraic approach to automated geospatial information fusion

An algebraic approach to automated geospatial information fusion

Geo‐Pragmatics for the Geospatial Semantic Web

Experiments to Examine the Situated Nature of Geoscientific Concepts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About