MAKOCI: A WEB PORTAL FOR INTEGRATING AND SHARING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SERVICES
https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2013-6-1-71-80
Abstract
The lack of integration and communication of various geographic information services (GI services) has resulted in many duplication collection of earth observation data, and challenges of semantic interoperability. This paper proposes an ontology-based multi-agents platform, called MAKOCI (multi-agent knowledge oriented cyberinfrastructure), which acts as GI service one stop to manage, publish, share, and discover GI services semantically. By ontologies, formal meanings of concepts are defined to annotate and discover GI services on a conceptual level for semantic interoperability. With the assistance of multi-agents, the processes in MAKOCI can be divided into various modules and be communicated based on the same semantics in ontologies. A prototype was implemented to test MAKOCI. Finally, we conclude the advantages and disadvantages of MAKOCI and point out several future works.
About the Authors
Chin-Te Jung
Department of Geography, National Taiwan University, Taipei city, Taiwan, No.1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, 106
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
Chih-Hong Sun
Professor, Department of Geography, National Taiwan University, Taipei city, Taiwan, No.1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, 106
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
Min-Fang Lien
Director of Technologies Department, Taiwan GIS Center, Taipei city, Taiwan, 6F, No,6, Sec. 1, Roosevelt Road, 106
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
Chih-Shyang Chang
Professor, Department of Information Management, Tungnan University, New Taipei city, Taiwan, No. 152, Sec. 3, Beishen Road, 222
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
Wei-Jen Chung
Engineer, Taiwan GIS Center, Taipei city, Taiwan, 6F, No,6, Sec. 1, Roosevelt Road, 106
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
Hong-Yang Lin
Engineer, Taiwan GIS Center, Taipei city, Taiwan, 6F, No,6, Sec. 1, Roosevelt Road, 106
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
Ping-Ying Tsai
Engineer, Taiwan GIS Center, Taipei city, Taiwan, 6F, No,6, Sec. 1, Roosevelt Road, 106
Taiwan, Province of China
Taiwan, Province of China
References
1. Albrecht, J. (1998) Universal Analytical GIS Operations – A task-oriented systematisation of
2. data-structure-independent GIS functionality. In Geographic Information Research: transatlantic
3. perspectives, eds. M. Craglia and H. Onsrud, 577–591. London: Taylor & Francis.
4. Babitski, G., Bergweiler, S., Hoffmann, J., Schön, D., Stasch, C., and Walkowski, A. (2009)
5. Ontology-based integration of sensor web services in disaster management. Paper read
6. at GeoSpatial Semantics 2009, LNCS 5892, at Berlin.
7. Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D., and Perez, A.G. (1998) Knowledge management through ontologies.
8. Paper read at Proceedings of the Second Inernational Conference on Practical
9. Aspects of Knowledge Management, at Basel, Switzerland.
10. Bernard, L., Einspanier, U., Haubrock, S., Hubner, S., Kuhn, W., Lessing, R., Lutz, M., and Visser,
11. U. (2003) Ontologies for intelligent search and semantic translation in spatial data infrastructures.
12. Photogrammetric-Fernerkundung-GeoInformation (PFG), N. 6, pp. 451–462.
13. Bishr, Y. (1998) Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperbility. International
14. Journal of Geographic Information Science, N. 12, V. 4, pp. 299–314.
15. Bizer, C., Heath, T., and Berners-Lee, T. (2009) Linked data-the story so far. Int. J. Semantic
16. Web Inf. Syst., N. 5, V. 3, pp. 1–22.
17. Crubézy, M., and Musen, M. A. (2003) Ontologies in support of problem solving. In Handbook
18. on ontologies, eds. S. Staab and R. Studer, 321–341. Berlin: Springer.
19. Di, L., Zhao, P., Yang, W., and Yue, P. (2006) Ontology-driven Automatic Geospatial-Processing
20. Modeling based on Web-service Chaining, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual NASA
21. Earth Science Technology Conference, College Park, MD.
22. Egenhofer, M. (2002) Towards the Semantic Geospatial Web. Paper read at Proceedings
23. of the Tenth ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information
24. Systems, at McLean, Virginia.
25. Fonseca, F., and Sheth, A. (2002) The Geospatial Semantic Web. Washington, D.C.: University
26. Consortium of Geographic Information Science White Paper.
27. Goodwin, C., and Russomanno, D.J. (2006) An ontology-based sensor network prototype
28. environment. Paper read at Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information
29. Processing in Sensor Networks, at Nashville, TN.
30. Gruber, T.R. (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge
31. Acquisition, N. 5, V. 2, pp. 199–220.
32. Hadzic, M., Wongthongtham, P., Dilon, T., and Chang, E. (2009) Ontology-Based Multi-
33. Agent Systems. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
34. Harvey, F., Kuhn, W., Pundt, H., Bishr, Y., and Riedemann, C. (1999) Semantic interoperability:
35. a central issue for sharing geographic information. The annals of regional science, N.
36. , pp. 213–232.
37. Iorio, A. D., Presutti, V., and Vitali, F. (2005) WikiFactory: An Ontology-Based Application for
38. Creating Domain-Oriented Wikis. Paper read at The 3rd European Semantic Web Conference,
39. ESWC 2006, at Budva, Montenegro.
40. Jaeger, E., Altintas, I., Zhang, J., Ludäscher, B., Pennington, D., and Michener, W. (2005) A
41. scientific workflow approach to distributed geospatial data processing using web services.
42. Paper read at SSDBM’2005 Proceedings of the 17th international conference on
43. Scientific and statistical database management, at Santa Barbara, CA.
44. Janowicz, K., Bröring, A., Stasch, C., and Everding, T. (2010) Towards Meaningful URIs for
45. Linked Sensor Data. Paper read at Proceedings of the Workshop “Towards Digital Earth:
46. Search, Discover and Share Geospatial Data 2010” at Future Internet Symposium 2010, at
47. Berlin, Germany.
48. Janowicz, K., Bröring, A., Stasch, C., Schade, S., Everding, T., and Llaves, A. (2011) A RESTful
49. Proxy and Data Model for Linked Sensor Data. International Journal of Digital Earth, N., pp.
50. Manuscript accepted for publication.
51. Klyne, G., and Carroll, J. J. (2004) Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and
52. Abstract Syntax, ed. B. McBride.
53. Knublauch, H., Rector, A., Stevens, R., and Wroe, C. (2004) A practical guide to building
54. OWL ontologies using the Protege-OWL plugin and CO-ODE tools edition 1.0, Workshop
55. on OWL: Experiences and Directions, Fourth International Semantic Web Conference
56. (ISWC2005), Galway, Ireland.
57. Kolas, D., Hebeler, J., and Dean, M. (2005) Geospatial Semantic Web: Architecture of Ontologies.
58. Paper read at GeoS 2005, LNCS 3799, at Mexico City, Mexico.
59. Kuhn, W. (2003) Semantic reference systems. International Journal of Geographic Information
60. Science, N. 17, V. 5, pp. 405–409.
61. Kvaløy, T. A., Rongen, E., Tirado-Ramos, A., and Sloot, P. (2005) Automatic composition and
62. selection of semantic web services. Paper read at Advances in Grid Computing-EGC 2005,
63. LNCS 3470, at Berlin, Germany.
64. Lemmens, R. (2006) Semantic interoperability of distributed geo-services, International
65. Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Delft University of
66. Technology, Enschede, The Netherlands.
67. Lutz, M. (2005) Overcoming Differences of Meaning in Spatial Data Infrastructures –
68. Achievement and Challenges, Position Paper for Workshop on Cross-learning between
69. Spatial Data Infrastructures and Information Infrastructures, Enschede, the Netherlands.
70. Lutz, M. (2006) Ontology-based discovery and composition of geographic information
71. services, Institute for Geoinformatics, University of Münster, Münster.
72. Lutz, M., Lucchi, R., Friis-Christensen, A., and Ostländer, N. (2007) A Rule-Based Description
73. Framework for the Composition of Geographic Information Services. In GeoSpatial
74. Semantics, eds. F. T. Fonseca, M. A. Rodriguez and S. Levashkin, 114–127: Springer.
75. Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassia, O., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci,
76. M., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N., and Sycara, K. (2004) OWL-S: Semantic
77. Markup for Web Services. W3C 2004 [cited. Available from http://www.w3.org/Submission/
78. OWL-S.
79. McGuinness, D. L., and Van Harmelen, F. (2004) OWL Web Ontology Language overview
80. [cited 7 June 2012]. Available from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
81. Moodley, D., and Kinyua, J. (2006) Towards a multi-agent infrastructure for distributed Internet
82. applications, 8th Annual Conference on WWW Applications, Bloemfontein, South
83. Africa.
84. Moodley, D., and Simonis, I. (2006) A new architecture for the sensor web: the SWAP
85. framework, The 5th International Semantic Web Conference (IWSC), Athens.
86. Niles, I., and Pease, A. (2001) Towards a Standard Upper Ontology. Paper read at the 2nd
87. International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), at
88. Ogunquit, Maine.
89. OGC. (2005) Web Feature Service Implementation Specification: Technical report OGC
90. -094.
91. OGC. (2006a) OpenGIS Implementation Specification for Geographic information – Simple
92. feature access – Part 1: Common architecture Techincal report 06-103r4.
93. OGC. (2006b) OpenGIS® Web Map Server Implementation Specification, version 1.3.0. In
94. Technical report OGC 06-042, ed. O. G. Consortium.
95. Peachavanish, R., and Karimi, H. (2007) Ontological Engineering for Interpreting Geospatial
96. Queries. Transactions in GIS, N. 11, V. 1, pp. 115–130.
97. Peng, Z., and Tsou, M. (2003) Internet GIS: Distributed Geographic Inofrmation Services for
98. the Internet and Wireless Networks. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
99. Prud’Hommeaux, E., and Seaborne, A. (2008) SPARQL query language for RDF. In W3C
100. working draft.
101. Purves, R.S., Clough, P., Jones, C.B., Arampatzis, A., Bucher, B., finch, D., Fu, G., Joho, H., Syed,
102. A.K., Vaid, S., and Yang, B. (2007) The design and implementation of SPIRIT: a spatially
103. aware search engine for information retrieval on the internet. International Journal of
104. Geographic Information Science, N. 21, V. 7, pp. 717–745.
105. Rauble, M. (2001) Ontology and epistemology for agent-based wayfinding simulation.
106. International Journal of Geographic Information Science, N. 15, pp. 653–667.
107. Sengupta, R., and Sieber, R. (2007) Geospatial Agents, Agents Everywhere... Transactions
108. in GIS, N. 11, V. 4, pp. 483–506.
109. Stock, K. (2008) Determining Semantic Similarity of Behaviour Using Natural Semantic
110. Metalanguage to Match User Objectives to Available Web Services. Transactions in GIS,
111. N. 12, pp. 733–755.
112. Uschold, M. (1998) Knowledge level modeling: concepts and terminology. The Knowledge
113. Engineering Review, N. 13, V. 1, pp. 5–29.
114. Wooldridge, M. (1999) Intelligent Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
115. Wooldridge, M., and Jennings, N. R. (1995) Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge
116. engineering review, N. 10, V. 2, pp. 115–152.
117. Yang, C., Raskin, R., Goodchild, M., and Gahegan, M. (2010) Geospatial Cyberinfrastructure:
118. Past, present and future. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, N. 34, pp.
119. –277.
120. Yu, L. (2011) A Developer’s Guide to the Semantic Web. Berlin: Springer.
121. Zhang, T., and Tsou, M. H. (2009) Developing a grid-enabled spatial Web portal for Internet
122. GIServices and geospatial cyberinfrastructure. International Journal of Geographical
123. Information Science, N. 23, V. 5, pp. 605–630.
Review
For citations:
Jung Ch., Sun Ch., Lien M., Chang Ch., Chung W., Lin H., Tsai P. MAKOCI: A WEB PORTAL FOR INTEGRATING AND SHARING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SERVICES. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2013;6(1):37-54. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2013-6-1-71-80
Views:
868
Email this article 