Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T01:31:23.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Modeling geodynamic processes with ontologies

from Part IV - Knowledge management and data integration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2011

Hassan A. Babaie
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
G. Randy Keller
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
Chaitanya Baru
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ontologies define the hierarchical structure and types of object and process entities and their properties, and reflect the nature of the spatial objects and regions involved in processes, relations among processes and spatial entities, and the temporal characteristics of the processes (e.g., Noy, 2004; Smith, 2003). Earth scientists study naturally, experimentally, or simulationally induced processes, and develop conceptual models to help them understand and simulate these processes in the laboratory. The metadata, i.e., information required to understand data, inherent in ontologies, can help the integration, reuse, and interoperability of these models, and enhancement of their functionality.

Despite the fact that object, state, process, and event constitute the main ingredients of an ontology (Galton and Worboys, 2005), most ontologies in the earth sciences only focus on the static part of reality, i.e., on objects (e.g., fault, subduction zone) and their properties and relations, leaving the processes (e.g., faulting, subduction), which constitute the dynamic part of reality, out of the picture. In other words, these ontologies ignore change through time and the processes that materialize these changes, despite the fact that earth scientists continuously collect data about individual spatial objects and processes in their research. With the advent of the Web and sophisticated digital data acquisition equipments, which produce an immense volume of data in short periods of time, and cover spatial regions of variable scale, there is an emerging and urgent need for data and information storage and interchange through ontology-based knowledge bases.

Type
Chapter
Information
Geoinformatics
Cyberinfrastructure for the Solid Earth Sciences
, pp. 166 - 190
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, J. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM, 26: 832–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23: 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babaie, H. A. and Babaei, A. (2005a). Modeling geological objects with the XML Schema. In Applications of XML in Geosciences, ed. Babaie, H. A. and Ramachandran, R.. Computers & Geosciences, Special Issue, 31: 1135–1150.
Babaie, H. A. and Babaei, A. (2005b). Developing the earthquake markup language and database with UML and XML Schema. In Applications of XML in Geosciences, ed. Babaie, H. A. and Ramachandran, R.. Computers & Geosciences, Special Issue, 31: 1175–1200.
Bittner, T., Donnelley, M., and Smith, B. (2004). Endurants and perdurants in directly depicting ontologies. AI Communications, 17(4), Special Issue on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1977). Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 3: Ontology I. The Furniture of the World. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 352pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C. (1999). Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 238pp.Google Scholar
Dietz, J. L. G. (2006). Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Berlin: Springer, 239pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, C.-C., Bittner, T., and Flewelling, D. M. (2004). Modeling Surface Hydrology Concepts with Endurance and Perdurance. LNCS 3234. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
Galton, A. (2000). Qualitative Spatial Change. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 409pp.Google Scholar
Galton, A. and Worboys, M. F. (2005). Processes and events in dynamic geospatial networks. In Proceedings of First International Conference on Geospatial Semantics, ed. Rodrıguez, M. A., Cruz, I. F., Egenhofer, M. J. and Levashkin, S.. LNCS 3799, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., and Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. LNCS 2473. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 223–233.Google Scholar
Grenon, P. (2003a). Spatiotemporality in basic formal ontology: SNAP and SPAN, upper-level ontology, and framework for formalization. IFOMIS Technical Report 05, 89pp.
Grenon, P. (2003b). The formal ontology of spatio-temporal reality and its formalization. In Foundations and Applications of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning (FASTR), ed. Guesguen, H. W., Mitra, D. and Renz, J.. AAAI Spring Symposium Technical Report Series. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
Grenon, P. (2003c). Spatio-temporality in basic formal ontology: SNAP and SPAN, upper-level ontology, and framework for formalization. IFOMIS Technical Reports Series 05/03.
Grenon, P. and Smith, B. (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1): 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenon, P., Smith, B., and Goldberg, L. (2004). Biodynamic ontology: Applying BFO in biomedical domain. In Ontologies in Medicine, ed. Pisanelli, D. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 20–38.Google Scholar
Guarino, N. and Welty, C. (2002). Identity and Subsumption. In The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. Green, R., Bean, C. A. and Hyon, M. Sung. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, K. (2001). How Things Persist. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 221pp.Google Scholar
Heller, B. and Herre, H. (2003). Ontological categories in GOL. In Process Theories: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Dynamic Categories, ed. Seibt, J.. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. B. (2003). Space, Time, and Einstein: An Introduction. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 192pp.Google Scholar
Koslicki, K. (2008). The Structure of Objects. New York: Oxford University Press, 288pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2002). A Survey of Metaphysics. New York: Oxford University Press, 402pp.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2005). Vagueness and endurance. Analysis, 65(2): 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, B. (1961). Objects, events, and complementarity. The Philosophical Review, 70(3): 340–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, C. and Gruninger, M. (2001). A formal foundation for process modeling. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 256–269.Google Scholar
Miller, K. (2005). The metaphysical equivalence of three and four dimensionalism. Erkenntnis, 62: 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, P. (2003). Continuants and processes in macroscopic chemistry. In Process Theories: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Dynamic Categories, ed. Seibt, J.. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noy, N. F. (2004). Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Record, Special Issue on Semantic Integration, 33(4): 65–70. Available at: www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0412/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pribbenow, S. (2002). Meronomic relationships: From classical mereology to complex part-whole relations. In The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed.Green, R., Bean, C. and Hyon, M. Sung. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, R. and Pan, M. J. (2005). Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). In Applications of XML in Geosciences, ed. Babaie, H. A. and Ramachandran, R.. Computers & Geosciences, 31: 1119–1125.
Sider, T. (2001). Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 390pp.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2001). Fiat objects. Topoi, 20(2): 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Ontology. In Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, ed. Floridi, L.. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 155–166.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2004). Beyond Concepts: Ontology as reality representation. In Formal Ontology and Information Systems 2004. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
Smith, B. and Grenon, P. (2004). The cornucopia of formal-ontological relations. Dialectica, 58(3): 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. and Rosse, C. (2004). The role of foundational relations in the alignment of biomedical ontologies. In Proceedings MEDINFO 2004, ed. Fiechi, M.et al. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 444–448.Google Scholar
Smith, B. and Varzi, A. C. (2000). Fiat and bona fide boundaries. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LX, 2: 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., Ceuster, W., Kellages, B.et al. (2005). Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology, 6, R46. Open Access.Google ScholarPubMed
Stell, J. G. and West, M. (2004). A four-dimentionalist mereotopology. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems, ed. Varzi, A. C. and Vieu, L.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar
Tobin, H. J. and Kinoshita, M. (2006). NanTroSEIZE: The IODP Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment. Scientific Drilling, 2: 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welty, C. and Guarino, N. (2001). Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 39: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×