Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- geo-ontology [2016/08/10 17:18]
gilberto
+++ geo-ontology [2016/08/10 19:32] (current)
gilberto
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
-===== Geospatial Ontology: ISAO 2016 =====
+===== Geospatial Ontology: An Introduction =====
-This short course is part of the [[http://isao2016.inf.unibz.it/| 2016 International School for Applied Ontology]].
 === Outline ===
-Ontologies of the geographic world are important to allow the sharing of geographic data among different communities of users. A geo-ontology provides a description of geographical entities, which can be conceptualised in two different views of the world. The //field// view considers spatial data to be a set of continuous distributions. The //object// view conceives the world as occupied by discrete, identifiable entities. Objects and fields are not merely located in space, they are tied intrinsically to space. However, to properly represent changes, it is also necessary to describe concepts that convey the dynamics of spatial phenomena. The notions of events and processes are useful to explicitly include the temporal dimension. The lectures present a general overview of the main trends in Geospatial Ontology, discussing the concepts of //objects//, //fields// and //events// for representation of geographical phenomena. The course also highlights the specific area of land use and land cover ontology, an area of considerable importance for geospatial ontology research.
+What we call "geographical data" includes different kinds of data. We observe the natural world when we get data about topography, landscapes, the oceans and the atmosphere. Sometimes we represent data from nature as a continuous variation, as when we build digital terrain models. In other situations, we give names to natural features, as when we say "Mont Blanc".  We also create geographical reality, as when we draw boundaries of countries and of land parcels. We also measure facts of the social world, when we take a census and locate crimes. We also build continuous distributions out of social reality, e.g., when we create maps of disease incidence in a country. We also observe and detect change in the geographical world, as when we map new deforested areas.
-===== Course Offerings =====
-This course has been offered at different venues:
+Ontologies of the geographic world are important to allow the sharing of geographic data among different communities of users. A geo-ontology provides a description of geographical entities, which can be conceptualised in two different views of the world. The //field// view considers spatial data to be a set of continuous distributions. The //object// view conceives the world as occupied by discrete, identifiable entities. Objects and fields are not merely located in space, they are tied intrinsically to space. However, to properly represent changes, it is also necessary to describe concepts that convey the dynamics of spatial phenomena. The notions of events and processes are useful to explicitly include the temporal dimension. The lectures present a general overview of the main trends in Geospatial Ontology, discussing the concepts of //objects//, //fields// and //events// for representation of geographical phenomena. The course also highlights the specific area of land use and land cover ontology, an area of considerable importance for geospatial ontology research.
-* [[isao2016 | 2016 International School for Applied Ontology]].
+The beauty and the challenge of Geoinformatics is that there are a relatively small set of data structures that are able to represent different types of geographical data. This representational power has enabled software engineers to develop the technology of geographical information systems. The challenge is to understand both the data structures and the semantics of the information they represent. This course is then focused on discussing the semantics of geographical data, as well as the links between such semantics and the associated computer representation. When they complete the course, we expect that students should be able to understand the different types of geographical data and how they are represented in computers.
-=== 1. Describing socially-agreed entities: Geographical Objects ===
+==== Motivation ====
-Lecture: [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/lecture-objects-isao2016.pptx|Geographical Objects]]
-Suggested Reading:
+The motivation for this course came from the need to establish a set of foundational concepts to the field of Geoinformatics. To do this, we will examine reference papers published in the literature that are relevant to Geoinformatics researchers and practicioners.
-  * Barry Smith and David Mark, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/SmithMark_SDH1998.pdf| Ontology and geographic kinds]]. Proceedings, International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Vancouver, Canada, 1998.
-  * Barry Smith and David Mark, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/smith_mark_geographical_categories.pdf| Geographical categories: an ontological investigation]]. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(7)591-612, 2001.
-  * Barry Smith and David Mark, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/smith_mark_mountains.pdf|"Do mountains exist? Towards an ontology of landforms"]]. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30(3):411–427, 2003.
-  * Antony Galton, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/galton_boundaries.pdf|"On the ontological status of geographical boundaries"]]. In Matt Duckham, Michael F. Goodchild and Michael F. Worboys (eds.), Foundations of Geographic Information Science, Taylor and Francis, 2003, pages 151-171.
-  * Edward Robinson, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundaries.pdf|"Reexamining fiat, bona fide and force dynamic boundaries for geopolitical entities and their placement in DOLCE."]]. Applied Ontology 7.1 (2012): 93-108.
-  * Fred Fonseca, Max Egenhofer, Peggy Agouris, Gilberto Camara, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/papers/fonseca_tgis_2002.pdf|Ontologies for Integrated GIS]]. Transactions on GIS, 6(3):231-257, 2002.
-[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/reading_objects.pdf|Questions to Ponder]]
+==== Outline ====
-=== 2. Describing the natural world: Geographical fields ===
+The course is organised on the following main topics:
-Lecture: [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/lecture-fields-isao2016.pptx|Fields]]
-Suggested Reading:
+  - What is Geoinformatics? General definitions. Linking computer representations to geographical data. General examples.
-  * Helen Couclelis, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/couclelis_1992_objects_fields.pdf|"People manipulate objects (but cultivate fields): Beyond the raster-vector debate in GIS"]]. In: Frank, A., Campari, I., Formentini, U. (eds.) Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space. LNCS, vol. 639. Springer, 1992.
+  - Geometries for representing the social world: points, lines and polygons. Topological relations.
-  * Gilberto Camara, Max Egenhofer, Karine Ferreira, Pedro Andrade, Gilberto Queiroz, Alber Sanchez, Jim Jones, Lubia Vinhas, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/papers/camara_fields_giscience2014.pdf|"Fields as a Generic Type for Big Spatial Data"]]. GIScience 2014 Conference.
+  - Representing the world: putting the Earth into a computer. Location as a key property of the world.
-  * Karen Kemp, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/kemp_fields.pdf|"Fields as a framework for integrating GIS and environmental process models"]]. Transactions in GIS 1(3):219–234, 1996.
+  - Representing the social world: generation geographical reality with our laws and social arrangements. The role of boundaries. Creating (fiat) objects. The need for maintaining identity of objects of the social world.
+  - Describing the natural world, part I: assigning names, identities and (bona fide) boundaries to places and features of the world and to living beings. The inherent ambiguity of "places".
+  - Describing the natural world, part 2: measuring properties of the world as continuous distributions. Fields as a general data type for measuring the world.
+  - Describing change: the concepts of trajectories, moving objects, and events.
-[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/reading_fields.pdf| Questions to Ponder]]
+===== Course Offerings =====
-=== 3. Describing changes in our world: Dynamic spatial ontologies ===
+This course has been offered at different venues:
-Lecture: [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/lecture-change-isao2016.pptx|Dynamic Spatial Ontologies]]
-Suggested reading:
-  * Andrew Frank, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/frank_spatio_temporal_ontology.pdf| "Ontology for Spatio-temporal Databases"]]. In Spatio-Temporal Databases: The Chorochronos Approach (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2520), edited by Manoulis Koubarakis and Timos Sellis, 9-78. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2003.
-  * Mike Worboys, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/worboys_ijgis2003event.pdf|Event-oriented approaches to geographic phenomena]]. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 19(1):1-28, 2005.
-  * Antony Galton, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/galton_fields_objects_space_time.pdf|"Fields and Objects in Space, Time, and Space-time"]]. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1):39-68, 2004.
-  * Antony Galton & Riichiro Mizoguchi,[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/galton_waterfall.pdf|"The Water Falls but the Waterfall does not Fall: New perspectives on Objects, Processes and Events"]]. Applied Ontology, 4(2):71—107, 2009.
-  * Grenon, P. & Smith, B.,[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/smith_snap_span.pdf|SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology]]. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1), 69--104, 2004.
-  * Karine Ferreira, Gilberto Camara, Miguel Monteiro, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/papers/stalgebra_tgis.pdf|"An algebra for spatiotemporal data: from observations to events"]]. Transactions in GIS,18(2):253–269,2014.
-[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/reading_change.pdf|Questions to Ponder]]
-=== 4. Combining the natural and social perspectives: Land cover and land use ontologies ===
-Lecture: [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/lecture-ontology-lucc-isao2016.pptx|Land Use and Land Cover Ontology]]
-SUggested reading:
-    * Robin Chazdon  et al., [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/Chadzon_ForestDefinitions_Ambio2016.pdf|  When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration]]. Ambio, 1--13, 2016.
-    * Alex Comber, Wadsworth, R., & Fisher, P., [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/Comber_ForestSemantics_JLUS2008.pdf| Using semantics to clarify the conceptual confusion between land cover and land use: the example of ‘forest’]]. Journal of Land Use Science, 3(2-3), 185--198, 2008.
-    * Ohla Ahlqvist, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/Ahlqvist_LCCS_EnvPlan2008.pdf|In search of classification that supports the dynamics of science: the FAO Land Cover Classification System and proposed modifications]]. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(1), 169--186, 2008.
-    * Martin Herold, Curtis E Woodcock, Antonio Di Gregorio, Philippe Mayaux, Alan S Belward, John Latham, Christiane C Schmullius, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/herold_lccs.pdf| A joint initiative for harmonization and validation of land cover datasets]]. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44(7):1719-1727, 2006.
-    * Martin Herold, Robert Hubald, Antonio Di Gregorio,[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/herold_translation_acs_corine_umd_igbp_to_lccs.pdf|Translating and evaluating land cover legends using the UN Land Cover Classification System (LCCS)]]. GOGC-GOLD Report, 43, 2008.
-    * Louisa Jansen, Geoff Groom and Giancarlo Carrai, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/jansen_land_cover_harmonisation.pdf| Land-cover harmonisation and semantic similarity: some methodological issues]]. Journal of Land Use Science, 3(2–3):131–160, 2008.
-    * Fred Fonseca, Gilberto Câmara, Miguel Monteiro, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/Fonseca_Camara_MeasuringInteroperability_SCC2003.pdf|A framework for measuring the interoperability of geo-ontologies]]. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6(4), 309--331, 2006.
-[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/reading_lucc.pdf|Questions to Ponder]]
-=== 5. In Search of a General Theory for Geospatial Ontologies ===
-Lecture: [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/isao2016/lecture-axiomatic-theory-isao2016.pptx|Axiomatic Theory]]
-Suggested reading:
+  * [[isao2016 | 2016 International School for Applied Ontology]].
-  * Antony Galton,[[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/Galton_ProcessesEvents_COSIT2015.pdf|Outline of a Formal Theory of Processes and Events, and Why GIScience Needs One]]. In COSIT 2015 (pp. 3--22), 2015.
+  * [[geo-ontology-inpe2016 | INPE Advanced Research Seminar, 2016]]
-  * Mike Goodchild, May Yuan, & Tom Cova, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/goodchild_general_theory_ijgis_2007.pdf|"Towards a general theory of geographic representation in GIS"]]. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(3), pp.239-260, 2007.
-  * Werner Kuhn, [[http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/kuhn_ijgis_2012.pdf|"Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research"]]. International Journal of Geographic Information Science vol.26(12), 2012.

GeoInformatics.cc

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools