140 likes | 309 Views
Linking Ontologies to Spatial Databases. Jenny Green & Catherine Dolbear. Agenda. Ordnance Survey – Who we are Semantic Research – Our motivations and goals Linking Ontologies to Spatial Databases Difficulties Our approach Conclusions. Ordnance Survey – Who we are.
E N D
Linking Ontologies to Spatial Databases Jenny Green & Catherine Dolbear
Agenda • Ordnance Survey – Who we are • Semantic Research – Our motivations and goals • Linking Ontologies to Spatial Databases • Difficulties • Our approach • Conclusions
Ordnance Survey – Who we are • National Mapping Agency of Great Britain • Data vendor: one of the largest geospatial databases in the world • Customers use GIS systems & spatially enabled databases to process data
Valuation Office Ordnance Survey Valuation Office Ordnance Survey Has Form Education Services Infant School Local Authority School School and Premises School High School Public & Independent School Junior School Private Secondary School Private Primary School Motivation for Semantic Research • Describe the content of our database explicitly. • Allow product customisation. • Improve integration of our data with our customers’.
Current Data Integration Issues • Syntactic / structural differences • Differing database schemas. • Various transfer formats. • Continuity of terms used between databases • Semantic differences: • Between the domains. • Between a domain and the data in the database.
Linking Ontologies to Spatial Databases • Database schemas rarely good descriptions of the domain. • Based on initial design constraints. • Performance optimisation processes. • Maintenance history. • Relevant relationships buried in software or attribute encoding. • Semantics promise to bring hidden complexity into the open. • Mapping from data to domain encoded in a data ontology.
Creating a Mapping • Data Ontology – describes the database schema. • Create mappings between the data ontology and the domain ontology. • Spatial Data presents an added intricacy. • How do we combine Space and Semantics?
Mapping Between Viewpoints – The Data Ontology • ‘River Stretch’ – not explicit in our database • Linear segments of ‘Water’ • ‘Floodplain’ • Area of Land touching a River
Current Technologies • D2RQ - maps SPARQL queries to SQL, creating “virtual” RDF [Bizer et al, 2006] • No need to convert data to RDF explicitly • But assumes generation of an ontology from the database schema • For content customisation, modifying the API to: • Use the data ontology mapping • Map queries via spatial relations to SQL spatial operators
D2RQ Mapping Domain ontology OS Mapping Relational (Spatial) Database System Overview Query OWL Inference Engine Virtual RDF Graph SQL + functions SQL + functions
System Overview (cont)… • Spatial databases are not normalised databases. • Mappings between the database and ontology concepts are not a one to one mapping. • Functions need to be included in the mapping. • Issues with the complexity of the mapping • Web services for complex processing? • Specify views within the data ontology or more complex function calls? • Some compromise on reformulating the relational data?
EA Data Ontology OS Data Ontology Example Use Case: Water Pollution Query: Find all river stretches which have decreased chemical water quality. OS Hydrology Domain Ontology Environment Agency Domain Ontology Merged ontology OS MasterMap Environment Agency Data
Conclusions • Ontologies auto-generated from database schemas are NOT sufficient & don’t address the real problem of semantics. • Simple relations between the domain ontology and the database schema are not sufficient. • Queries over OWL ontologies need to be more complete/easier. (we await the release of SparQL-DL) • Speed will become an issue as the system develops. • There is no simple solution!
Questions Thank you for your attention for further details see: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ontology