Comparing and Combining Different Expert Relations of How Land Cover Ontologies Relate

  • Alexis Comber
  • Peter Fisher
  • Richard Wadsworth
Conference paper


Expressions of expert opinion are being used to relate ontologically diverse data and to identify logical inconsistency them. Relations constructed under different scenarios, from different experts and evidence combined in different ways identify different subsets of inconsistency, the reliability of which can be parameterised by field validation. It is difficult to identify one combination as being objectively “better” than other. The selection of specific experts and scenarios depends on user perspectives.


Land Cover Land Cover Change Semantic Relation Land Cover Mapping Semantic Technical 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bishr, Y., 1998. Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12(4), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Comber, A. Fisher, P., and Wadsworth, R. (in press a). Integrating land cover data with different ontologies: identifying change from inconsistency. International Journal of Geographic Information Science.Google Scholar
  3. Comber, AJ, Fisher, PF, Wadsworth, RA., (in press b). Assessment of a Semantic Statistical Approach to Detecting Land Cover Change Using Inconsistent Data Sets. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing.Google Scholar
  4. Comber, A. Fisher, P. and Wadsworth, R., 2003a. Actor Network Theory: a suitable framework to understand how land cover mapping projects develop? Land Use Policy, 20, 299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comber, A.J., Fisher, P.F and Wadsworth, R.A, 2003b. A semantic statistical approach for identifying change from ontologically divers land cover data. In AGILE 2003, 5th AGILE conference on Geographic Information Science, edited by Michael Gould, Robert Laurini, Stephane Coulondre (Lausanne: PPUR), pp. 123–131.Google Scholar
  6. Comber, AJ, Fisher, PF, Wadsworth, RA., 2003c. Identifying Land Cover Change Using a Semantic Statistical Approach: First Results. In cd Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on GeoComputation, 8th–10th September 2003 (University of Southampton).Google Scholar
  7. Frank, A.U. 2001. Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(7), 667–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuller, R.M., Smith, G.M., and Devereux, B.J. (2003). The characterisation and measurement of land cover change through remote sensing: problems in operational applications? International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 4, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuller, R.M., G.B., Groom, A.R. Jones, 1994. The Land Cover Map of Great Britain: an automated classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 60, 553–562.Google Scholar
  10. Fuller, R.M., Smith, G.M., Sanderson, J.M., Hill, R.A. and Thomson, A.G., 2002. Land Cover Map 2000: construction of a parcel-based vector map from satellite images. Cartographic Journal, 39, 15–25.Google Scholar
  11. Guarino, N, 1995. Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 625–640.Google Scholar
  12. Harvey, F., Kuhn, W., Pundt, H., Bishr, Y. and Riedemann, C.,, 1999. Semantic interoperability: A central issue for sharing geographic information. Annals of Regional Science 33(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herring J.R., 1999. The OpenGIS data model. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65(5), 585–588.Google Scholar
  14. OGC, 2003. OpenGIS Consortium. (last date accessed: 10 June 2003).Google Scholar
  15. Pundt, H. and Y. Bishr, 2002. Domain ontologies for data sharing-an example from environmental monitoring using field GIS. Computers and Geosciences, 28(1), 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, G.M. and R.M. Fuller, 2002. Land Cover Map 2000 and meta-data at the land parcel level, In Uncertainty in Remote Sensing and GIS, edited by G.M. Foody and P.M. Atkinson (London: John Wiley and Sons), pp 143–153.Google Scholar
  17. Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G. and Vogele, T., 2002. Ontologies for geographic information processing. Computers and Geosciences, 28, 103–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexis Comber
    • 1
  • Peter Fisher
    • 1
  • Richard Wadsworth
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Monks Wood, Abbots RiptonHuntingdon, CambridgeshireUK

Personalised recommendations