On 3 June 2015, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) GeoSemantics Domain Working Group will host a summit, “GeoSemantics: Standards Intersect Ontologies”. This summit will be part of the OGC’s June 2015 Technical Committee meeting in Boulder, Colorado. The Summit’s central topic is the application of ontologies in standards-based geo-information infrastructures.
The idea of the Semantic Web has been around for well over 10 years, and more recently principles of Linked Data have been gaining a lot of momentum. The Semantic Web involves data elements and connections between them being published on the Web in order to provide concrete opportunities for experimentation in semantic applications. Well defined, community agreements on semantics hold considerable promise for solving harmonization and integration of geospatial data sources from different regions, domains, and communities. Due to the universality of location and time geospatial (and temporal) semantics particularly have potential for advancing integration of both geospatial and non-geospatial data. At the same time, ontologies are increasingly a part of formal information specifications and models. This OGC summit is focused on bringing the informal linked data and formal ontology worlds closer together in the geospatial standards development process. This Call is for participants to share knowledge, present examples, and address issues involving geospatial ontologies. Topics of particular relevance include:
- Existing generic ontologies or vocabularies for the geospatial domain. GeoSPARQL is the only current standard, but it is focused on geometry; are there improvements to be suggested? Which other candidates are there? For example, there is the U.S. government’s National System for Geospatial Intelligence (NSG) Enterprise Ontology (NEO) and NSG Feature Data Dictionary (NFDD). The W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group will address this topic in its “Best Practice” deliverable. However, the geospatial domain has specialized needs not likely to be addressed by the W3C. Should OGC address these needs with a central geospatial ontology standard, an assortment of geospatial ontology patterns, or general rules for formation of geospatial ontologies from other semantic / syntactic representations?
- Should OGC register existing or proposed domain specific ontologies/vocabularies such as Semantic Sensor Networks (SSN), USGS National Map (TNM) ontologies, OWS-10 geospatial ontologies, etc.
- There are many standardized spatial information models available as UML from ISO and OGC, as well as from INSPIRE and various national bodies. Work is ongoing in deriving OWL ontologies from these models; one approach is being developed in ISO 19150-2. What is the state of the art and any current issues with this sort of rule-based mapping?
- Linked Data and graph data models. Besides facilitating formal semantics, do graph models add value to spatial data representation in and of themselves? Are there problems yet to solve with graph models in relation to spatial data?
- Another application of semantics involves the use of ontologies in conjunction with OGC web services. What are the practices and issues here?
- Geosemantics issues have been worked on in the present OGC Testbed 11 as well as in several previous OWS testbeds. What are their lessons for the adoption of ontology and formal semantics?
To be considered for participation in the summit, please send a short abstract of your proposed contribution (200 – 400 words) to Linda van den Brink (l.vandenbrink [at] geonovum.nl) so that we can develop a final agenda appropriate to the interests and backgrounds of the participants.
To register for the event please visit the registration page.
[Source: OGC press release]
The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has issued a Request for Quotations/Call for Participation (RFQ/CFP) in the OGC Incident Management Information Sharing Internet of Things Pilot Project (IMIS IoT Pilot). Participants in the IMIS IoT Pilot will prototype and demonstrate standards-based approaches to a series of challenges that hinder effective use of large numbers of diverse sensors for use in emergency response and disaster response situations.
OGC pilot projects apply and test OGC standards in real world applications using Standards Based Commercial Off-The-Shelf (SCOTS) products that implement OGC standards and other related standards.
IMIS IoT Pilot sponsors have documented interoperability requirements and objectives for this pilot activity. Organizations selected to participate in the IMIS IoT Pilot will develop solutions based on the sponsors’ use cases, requirements and scenarios, which are described in detail in the RFQ/CFP. Participants’ solutions will implement existing OGC standards as well as new prototype interface and encoding specifications introduced or developed in OGC testbeds. Outcomes will be documented in public OGC Engineering Reports. These may result in OGC discussion papers, best practices or new standards-prototyping activities.
Initial notional system design for the IMIS IoT Pilot. (SWE: OGC Sensor Web Enablement Standards. S-Hub: Sensor Hub. HubCat: Catalog of registered sensors and sensor types. WMS: OGC Web Map Service Interface Standard. SOS/STA: OGC Sensor Observation Service Interface Standard/OGC Lightweight SOS Profile for Stationary In-Situ Sensor Best Practice. WNS: OGC Web Notification Service Discussion Paper.)
IMIS sponsors include:
The RFQ/CFP and information about the IMIS pilot project are available at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/133. Responses are due by 5:00 pm EDT on 22 May 2015.
If you want to learn more about this opportunity, please contact Lew Leinenweber, Director Interoperability Programs (email@example.com). See http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/programs/ip for more information about the 15-year-old OGC Interoperability Program in which OGC testbeds, pilot projects and interoperability experiments are organized, planned and managed.
[Source: OGC press release]
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2015, 4(2), 607-625
By April Moreno, John Tangenberg, Brian N. Hilton, and June K. Hilton
“In an effort to reforest school sites with limited resources, communities and non-profits have implemented projects on Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school sites, often without thought for the best location, long-term maintenance, or appropriateness of the tree type. Although studies exist related to sun safety policies in schools, there has been little emphasis on the environmental public health benefits of trees in public schools. The LAUSD School Shade Tree Canopy Study was a response to this issue in which data was analyzed (a total of 33,729 trees in the LAUSD were mapped) regarding tree canopy coverage, pervious/impervious areas, and buildings for 509 elementary schools to assess urban forestry management issues and environmental injustices within communities of the district.”
Website showing map layers, data, and report access.
“The results of these analyses indicate that there is a wide range of school site size, tree canopy coverage as a percentage of school site size, tree canopy coverage as a percentage of play area, and percentage of unpaved surface play areas (e.g., (~20%) of the schools have both (0.0%) tree canopy coverage play areas and 100% paved surfaces). This finding alone has implications in how the LAUSD may implement sun safe polices which would aid in preventing skin cancer and other adverse health outcomes for students within the school district.”