Ontology dynamics in a data life cycle: Challenges and recommendations from a Geoscience Perspective

Abstract

Ontologies are increasingly deployed as a computer-accessible representation of key semantics in various parts of a data life cycle and, thus, ontology dynamics may pose challenges to data management and re-use. By using examples in the field of geosciences, we analyze challenges raised by ontology dynamics, such as heavy reworking of data, semantic heterogeneity among data providers and users, and error propagation in cross-discipline data discovery and re-use. We also make recommendations to address these challenges: (1) communities of practice on ontologies to reduce inconsistency and duplicated efforts; (2) use ontologies in the procedure of data collection and make them accessible to data users; and (3) seek methods to speed up the reworking of data in a Semantic Web context.

Keywords

semantic web / knowledge evolution / data transformation / geoscience

References

Allen D, Schuurman N, Deshpande A, . Data Integration and Standardization in Cross-Border Hydrogeological Studies: A Novel Approach to Hydrostratigraphic Model Development. Environmental Geology, 2008, 53(7): 1441-1453.

Bates R L, Jackson J A. Glossary of Geology, 1995, 3rd Edition Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, 788.

Bell D, Qi G, Liu W. Meersman R, Tari Z, Herrero P. Approaches to Inconsistency Handling in Description-Logic Based Ontologies. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: Otm 2007 Workshops, Pt 2, Proceedings, 2007 Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1303-1311.

British Geological Survey British Geological Survey Taxonomy Online, 2012

Brodaric B. The Design of GSC FieldLog: Ontology-Based Software for Computer Aided Geological Field Mapping. Computers & Geosciences, 2004, 30(1): 5-20.

Brodaric B. Characterizing and Representing Inference Histories in Geologic Mapping. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2012, 26(2): 265-281.

CCOP, CIFEG Asian Multilingual Thesaurus of Geosciences. Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia (CCOP), Bangkok, Thailand and Centre International pour la Formation et les Echanges en Géosciences (CIFEG), Orléans, 2006, 563.

Cox S J. OWL Representation of the Geologic Timescale Implementing Stratigraphic Best Practice. Proceedings of AGU 2011 Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 2011

Cox S J. Vocabularies of Geologic Time Scale, 2012

Cox S J D, Richard S M. A Formal Model for the Geologic Time Scale and Global Stratotype Section and Point, Compatible with Geospatial Information Transfer Standards. Geosphere, 2005, 1(3): 119-137.

Flouris G, D’Aquin M, Antoniou G, . Special Issue on Ontology Dynamics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2009, 19(5): 717-719.

Flouris G, Manakanatas D, Kondylakis H, . Ontology Change: Classification and Survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 2008, 23(2): 117-152.

Geo-Data Informatics Workshop Committee NSF GeoData Informatics: Exploring the Life Cycle, Citation and Integration of Geo-Data (Workshop Report), 2011

Gruber T R. Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1995, 43(5–6): 907-928.

Guarino N. Understanding, Building and Using Ontologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1997, 46(2–3): 293-310.

Han L, Finin T, Parr C, . Sheth A, Staab S, Dean M, . RDF123: from Spreadsheets to RDF. The Semantic Web-ISWC 2008, 2008 Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 451-466.

International Commission on Stratigraphy Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the International Commission of Stratigraphy, 2012

Janowicz K, Hitzler P. The Digital Earth as Knowledge Engine. Semantic Web, 2012, 3(3): 213-221.

Kondylakis H, Plexousakis D. Jeusfeld M, Delcambre L, Ling T W. Ontology Evolution in Data Integration: Query Rewriting to the Rescue. Conceptual Modeling-ER 2011, 2011 Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 393-401.

Laxton J, Serrano J J, Tellez-Arenas A. Geological Applications Using Geospatial Standards-An Example from OneGeology-Europe and GeoSciML. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2010, 3(Supp1.): 31-49.

Ma X, Asch K, Laxton J L, . Data Exchange Facilitated. Nature Geoscience, 2011, 4 12 814

Ma X, Carranza E J M, Wu C, . A SKOSBased Multilingual Thesaurus of Geological Time Scale for Interoperability of Online Geological Maps. Computers & Geosciences, 2011, 37(10): 1602-1615.

Ma X, Fox P. Recent Progress on Geologic Time Ontologies and Considerations for Future Works. Earth Science Informatics, 2013, 6(1): 31-46.

Ma X, Wu C, Carranza E J M, . Development of a Controlled Vocabulary for Semantic Interoperability of Mineral Exploration Geodata for Mining Projects. Computers & Geosciences, 2010, 36(12): 1512-1522.

Mascarelli A L. Quaternary Geologists Win Timescale Vote. Nature, 2009, 459 624

McGuinness D L, . Fensel D, Hendler J, Lieberman H, . Ontologies Come of Age. Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential, 2003 Cambridge: MIT Press, 171-196.

NADM Steering Committee NADM Conceptual Model 1.0-A conceptual Model For Geologic Map Information: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1334, North American Geologic Map Data Model (NADM) Steering Committee, Reston. 58, 2004

Noy N F, Musen M A. Ontology Versioning in an Ontology Management Framework. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2004, 19(4): 6-13.

Obrst L. Ontologies for Semantically Interoperable Systems. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, New Orleans, 2003, 366-369.

Raskin R G, Pan M J. Knowledge Representation in the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET). Computers & Geosciences, 2005, 31(9): 1119-1125.

Sen M, Duffy T. GeoSciML: Development of a Generic GeoScience Markup Language. Computers & Geosciences, 2005, 31(9): 1095-1103.

Soller D, Berg T. Ostaficzuk S R. The U.S. National Geologic Map Database Project: Overview & Progress. The Current Role of Geological Mapping in Geosciences, 2005 Dordrecht: Springer, 245-277.

Spencer S. What is DDI?, 2012