GeoSPARQL+: Syntax, Semantics and System for Integrated Querying of Graph, Raster and Vector Data

Homburg, Timo; Staab, Steffen; Janke, Daniel

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_15

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To that end, full-featured support for 3D geometries and support for coverages are discussed on the level of data representations. These proposals are related to some growing interest in the semantic web community in representing further geospatial data related to building information [45] and coverage data [38]. More requirements might also be introduced once feedback has been received from the GeoSPARQL 1.1 and 1.2 releases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GeoSPARQL implementation of the Apache Jena software library GeoSPARQL-Jena [37] provides, according to recent benchmarks [13], the only complete implementation of the GeoSPARQL 1.0 specification. In addition, GeoSPARQL-Jena has been extended in a prototypical use case to support raster data in [38]. This implementation not only featured prototypical raster support in GeoSPARQL-Jena but also aimed at the implementation of a variety of functions defined in the Simple Features implementation standard.…”

Section: Geosparql-jenamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work is underway, by members of the SWG, to implement DGGS topological relations functions in Jena in a mirror implementation to that in RDFlib described above. A combination of the DGGS algorithms from the RDFlib implementation and the raster handling from [38] will likely provide the first implementation of an RDF library and accompanying triple store to provide full support of the GeoSPARQL 1.1 specification within Jena.…”

Section: Geosparql-jenamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

GeoSPARQL 1.1: An Almost Decadal Update to the Most Important Geospatial LOD Standard

Car¹,

Homburg²

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012 the Open Geospatial Consortium published GeoSPARQL defining “an RDF/OWL ontology for [spatial] information”, “SPARQL extension functions” for performing spatial operations on RDF data and “RIF rules” defining entailments to be drawn from graph pattern matching. In the 8+ years since its publication, GeoSPARQL has become the most important spatial Semantic Web standard, as judged by references to it in other Semantic Web standards and its wide use for Semantic Web data. An update to GeoSPARQL was proposed in 2019 to deliver a version 1.1 with a charter to: handle outstanding change requests and source new ones from the user community and to “better present” the standard, that is to better link all the standard’s parts and better document &amp; exemplify elements. Expected updates included new geometry representations, alignments to other ontologies, handling of new spatial referencing systems, and new artifact presentation. In this paper, we describe motivating change requests and actual resultant updates in the candidate version 1.1 of the standard alongside reference implementations and usage examples. We also describe the theory behind particular updates, initial implementations of many parts of the standard, and our expectations for GeoSPARQL 1.1’s use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Geosparql-jenamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Geosparql-jenamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

GeoSPARQL 1.1: An Almost Decadal Update to the Most Important Geospatial LOD Standard

Car¹,

Homburg²

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GeoSPARQL implementation of the Apache Jena software library GeoSPARQL-Jena [38] provides, according to recent benchmarks [13], the only complete implementation of the GeoSPARQL 1.0 specification. In addition, GeoSPARQL-Jena has been extended in a prototypical use case to support raster data in [39]. This implementation featured prototypical raster support in GeoSPARQL-Jena and aimed at implementing a variety of functions defined in the Simple Features implementation standard.…”

Section: Geosparql-jenamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work is underway by members of the SWG to implement DGGS topological relations functions in Jena in a mirror implementation to that in RDFlib described above. A combination of the DGGS algorithms from the RDFlib implementation and the raster handling from [39] will likely provide the first implementation of an RDF library and accompanying triple store to provide full support of the GeoSPARQL 1.1 specification within Jena.…”

Section: Geosparql-jenamentioning

confidence: 99%

GeoSPARQL 1.1: Motivations, Details and Applications of the Decadal Update to the Most Important Geospatial LOD Standard

Car

Homburg

2022

IJGI

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, the Open Geospatial Consortium published GeoSPARQL defining “an RDF/OWL ontology for [spatial] information”, “SPARQL extension functions” for performing spatial operations on RDF data and “RIF rules” defining entailments to be drawn from graph pattern matching. In the 8+ years since its publication, GeoSPARQL has become the most important spatial Semantic Web standard, as judged by references to it in other Semantic Web standards and its wide use for Semantic Web data. An update to GeoSPARQL was proposed in 2019 to deliver a version 1.1 with a charter to: handle outstanding change requests and source new ones from the user community and to “better present” the standard, that is to better link all the standard’s parts and better document and exemplify elements. Expected updates included new geometry representations, alignments to other ontologies, handling of new spatial referencing systems, and new artifact presentation. This paper describes motivating change requests and actual resultant updates in the candidate version 1.1 of the standard alongside reference implementations and usage examples. We also describe the theory behind particular updates, initial implementations of many parts of the standard, and our expectations for GeoSPARQL 1.1’s use.

show abstract