Advertisement

Specifications for User Generated Spatial Content

  • Carmen BrandoEmail author
  • Bénédicte Bucher
  • Nathalie Abadie
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC, volume 1)

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue of quality in the context of collaborative edition of spatial content. The overall approach is grounded on the definition of explicit and adequate specifications for such content, i.e. the data model, the conceptual model, conventions for data acquisition, possible integrity constraints, possible relationships with external reference data. Explicit specifications could be processed to automatically check when different users simultaneously contribute on the same area. Their definition requires expertness, firstly, to ensure spatial content consistency and, secondly, to establish relevant relationships with external reference data. Designing these specifications is not an easy task for contributors. Hence, the focus of this paper is to assist them in this task. We propose a generic process to automatically produce specification items such as feature types, attribute types, and relationship types, including possible relationship types with external reference data from a set of keywords. It exploits information from two different kinds of existing contents: user generated content (like Wikipedia) and more conventional content (like WordNet and NMA databases). It has been applied to keywords found in existing user generated spatial contents.

Keywords

Attribute Type Integrity Constraint Relationship Type Internal Link User Generate Content 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abadie N (2009) Formal Specifications to Automatically Identify Heterogeneities, in the 12th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science Pre-Conference Workshop: Challenges in Spatial Data Harmonization, Hannover, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou V, Haklay M, Morley J (2010) A step towards the improvement of spatial data quality of Web 2.0 geo- applications: the case of OpenStreetMap, in the 18th GISRUK Conference, London, UK, pp. 197–201Google Scholar
  3. Bédard Y, Larrivée S, Proulx MJ, Nadeau M (2004) Modeling Geospatial Databases with Plug-Ins for Visual Languages: A Pragmatic Approach and the Impacts of 16 Years of Research and Experimentation on Perceptory. In: Wang S et al. (eds) Conceptual Modeling for Geographic Information Systems Workshop, LNCS 3289, pp. 17–30Google Scholar
  4. Bishr M, Kuhn W (2007) Geospatial Information Bottom-Up: A Matter of Trust and Semantics, in: Fabrikant SI, Wachowicz M (eds) The European Information Society - Leading the Way with Geo-information, Springer Verlag LNGC, pp 365–387Google Scholar
  5. Budhathoki N R, Nedovic-Budic Z, Bruce B (2010). A framework for volunteered geographic information: Proposal and illustration. Geomatica 64 (1): 11–26Google Scholar
  6. Brando C, Bucher B (2010) Quality in User Generated Spatial Content: A Matter of Specifications, in the 13th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Guimarães, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruns HT, Egenhofer MJ (1996) Similarity of Spatial Scenes, in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, pp 31–42Google Scholar
  8. Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2007) Ontology Matching, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, p. 73Google Scholar
  9. Gilles J (2005) Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature 438(7070): 900– 901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Girres JF, Touya G (2010) Quality Assessment of the French OpenStreetMap Dataset. Transactions in GIS 14 (4): 435–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodchild M (2007) Citizens as Sensors: The World of Volunteered Geography. GeoJournal 69(4): 211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham M (2010) Neogeography and the Palimpsests of Place. TijdsCHrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograpfie 101(4): 422–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haklay M (2010) How good is OpenStreetMap information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets for London and the rest of England. Environment and Planning B 37(4), pp. 682 – 703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hecht B, Raubal M (2008) GeoSR: Geographically Explore Semantic Relations in World Knowledge, in Bernard L, Friis-Christensen A, Pundt H (eds) 11th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Springer Verlag LNGC, pp 95–113Google Scholar
  15. ISO (2003) Geographic Information - Metadata, International Standard, TC211/ ISO19115:2003Google Scholar
  16. ISO (2005) Geographic Information – Rules for application schema, International Standard, TC211/ ISO19109:2005Google Scholar
  17. Kavouras M, Kokla M (2008) Theories of geographic concepts – Ontological Approaches to Semantic Integration. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Mäs S (2007) Checking the Integrity of Spatial Semantic Integrity Constraints, Constraint Databases, Geometric Elimination and Geographic Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  19. Mihalcea R (2007) Using Wikipedia for Automatic Word Sense Disambiguation, in Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Rochester, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller GA (1995) WordNet: A Lexical Database for English, Communications of ACM 38(11): 39–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nastase V, Strube M, Boerschinger B, Zirn C, Elghafari A (2010) WikiNet: A Very Large Scale Multi-Lingual Concept Network, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Valletta, MaltaGoogle Scholar
  22. Oster G, Urso P, Molli P, Imine A (2006) Data consistency for P2P collaborative editing, in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 259–267, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner A (2006) Introduction to Neogeography, O’Reilly Media, p 2Google Scholar
  24. Parent C, Spaccapietra S, Zimanyi E, Donini P, Plazanet C, Vangenot C (1998) Modeling Spatial Data in the MADS Conceptual Model, in Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data handling, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 138–150Google Scholar
  25. Wu F, Weld DS (2008) Automatically Refining the Wikipedia Infobox Ontology, in Proceedings of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference, Beijing, China, pp. 635–644Google Scholar
  26. Zesch T, Gurevych I (2007) Analysis of the Wikipedia Category Graph for NLP Applications, in Proceedings of the TextGraphs-2 Workshop, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  27. Zirn C, Nastase V, Strube M (2008) Distinguishing between Instances and Classes in the Wikipedia Taxonomy, in Bechhofer S, Hauswirth, Hoffmann J, Koubarakis (eds) The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 5th European Semantic Web Conference, Springer Verlag LNCS, pp 376–387Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Brando
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bénédicte Bucher
    • 1
  • Nathalie Abadie
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Paris-Est – Institut Géographique National (IGN)-COGIT LaboratorySaint-MandéFrance

Personalised recommendations