Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
Spatial Planning On The Semantic Web Terracognita 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Spatial Planning On The Semantic Web Terracognita 2009

  • 459 views
Published

 

Published in Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
459
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Alle bronnen van anderen, ook bestemmingen terwijl wij alles daaraan hingen. In nieuwe opzet ook bestemmingen extern.
  • Later?CLIME: Legal assessment as a service
  • Misschien weg?
  • Approach for specifying spatial norms using Semantic Web technology that enables an intuitive way of visualising their effects: map based legal case assessment.

Transcript

  • 1. Spatial Planning on the Semantic Web
    RadboudWinkels, Rinke Hoekstra, Erik Hupkes
  • 2. Outline
    Use Case
    Requirements
    Metadata
    Legal perspective
    Representation
    Example
    Limitations
    Futurework
    10/26/09
    2
  • 3. 10/26/09
    3
  • 4. Room for Improvement
    Finegrained coupling with regulation texts
    Assessment
    “Am I allowed to build X here?”
    Planning
    “Wheream I allowed to build X?”
    Evaluation
    “Are land use regulations X and Y consistent?”
    “What is the impact of policy X?”
    10/26/09
    4
  • 5. Legal Perspective
    Plans do not describe existing situation, but
    Prescribe restrictions and rights associated with geospatial objects.
    Maps provide intuitive handles for evaluating the normative content of land use regulations:
    Hierarchical relation between authorities coincides with spatial inclusion
    Adjacency determines indirect effect (e.g. industry next to nature reserve)
    10/26/09
    5
  • 6. Heterogeneity
    Spatial plans: maps and documents
    Maps & other data
    Geotagging of photos, traffic conditions &c.
    How to ‘link’ the data?
    Determine meaningful overlap between data from involved domains
    Spatial plans:
    Land use category
    10/26/09
    6
  • 7. Metadata and Ownership
    Multiple origins
    Regulations issued by different government bodies with overlapping jurisdiction
    Different categorisation schemes
    Subject to change
    Problems
    Overlap: users unaware of interaction between jurisdictions
    Transparent presentation of all applicable regulations on a single map
    Comparison: different schemes hinder comparison of land use regimes
    Promote sharing of categorisation schemes
    10/26/09
    7
  • 8. Approaches to scheme sharing
    Standardisation
    Top-down, prescribed, single domain
    IMRO 2006: obligatory for municipal urban planning in NL
    INSPIRE: standardise exchange of spatial information within EU
    Umbrella, unifying framework, multiple domains
    GEMET: multilingual thesaurus of 5000+ environmental terms
    10/26/09
    8
  • 9. Requirements (1)
    Categorisation scheme maintained by owner of standard
    Integration requires a mapping between categorisation schemes
    Flexible mechanism (cf. BestMap paper at OWLED)
    Representation maintained by owner of regulation
    Distributed content and semantics
    Semantic Web
    10/26/09
    9
  • 10. Requirements (2)
    Maps
    Served from standards compliant web services
    Accessible through off-the-shelf API’s
    Regulation texts
    Served from web-accessible locations,
    In a format that allows for integration with metadata
    Metadata
    Used both for information on maps and corresponding texts
    Mapping between vocabularies
    Norms
    Represented in terms of standard metadata,
    Expressed using a Semantic Web compliant language
    10/26/09
    10
  • 11. LegalAtlas(a.o. Winkels et al., 2007)
    • Connection between texts and map
    • 12. Represented in RDF
    • 13. Not web based
    • 14. Not service based
    • 15. Limited to IMRO 2006 categories
    • 16. No representation of norms
    • 17. No normative reasoning
    • 18. Annotation mechanism:
    • 19. `Designations’ are annotated with maps and texts, instead of the other way around
    • 20. Not extensible with other land use categorization schemes
    • 21. Land use categories as classes: lots of individuals
    10/26/09
    11
  • 22. Information Serving
    Geographic Information Systems
    Exchange
    GeoRSS, GML, KML, ESRI Shapefiles
    Services
    Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS)
    Basic geospatial reasoning facilities
    No support for normative aspects of spatial plans
    10/26/09
    12
  • 23. Towards a Legal Information Server
    Provide normative reasoning as a service
    Assess whether some situation is allowed or disallowed, given a set of norms
    Implementations:
    LIS (Winkels et al., ‘98,’02)
    SWI-Prolog
    LKIF Core (Hoekstra et al. ’09, Hoekstra ’09) andHARNESS (van de Ven, et al. ‘08)
    OWL 2 DL
    10/26/09
    13
  • 24. Revised annotation mechanism
    Region-centred
    Land use categories as SKOS concepts
    Mappings between categories as OWL classes (BestMap, OWLED)
    Web service based
    Sesame RDF triple store
    SwiftOWLIMReasoner
    OpenGISGeoServer
    Google Maps
    Spatial norms
    Allowed/Disallowed situations
    OWL 2 DL class descriptions
    Prototype System
    10/26/09
    14
  • 25. 10/26/09
    15
  • 26. Example (1)
    Two land use categories, and two regions:
    Mapping:
    Norm:
    16
    10/26/09
  • 27. Spatial plan:
    User adds region with
    GeoServer infers
    OWLIM infers
    SPARQL Query:
    Example (2)
    17
    10/26/09
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30.
  • 31.
  • 32. Flevoland
    10/26/09
    22
  • 33. Using OWL 2 DL…
    Advantages
    Standard, ‘off the shelf’ reasoners
    Decidable, complete, guaranteed response
    Monotonic
    Disadvantages
    Limited expressiveness vs. complexity of world
    OWL 2 DL is restricted to ‘tree models’
    Complex configurations of objects are hard to define
    No obvious way to connect DL reasoning to GIS
    10/26/09
    23
  • 34. Conclusions
    Representation of distributed spatial regulations
    Map based legal assessment as web service
    Compare and evaluate spatial regulations
    Application of other work to new domain
    Legal case assessment method in OWL 2 DL
    Ontology mapping (BestMap, OWLED)
    10/26/09
    24
  • 35. Future Work
    Explaining Results
    Query for conflicts
    Currently only for specific cases
    More advanced reasoning
    “Space Package” (Hage et al. 2009)
    PelletSpatial (RCC8, Stocker & Sirin, 2009)
    Dealing with exception hierarchies (GIS Transactions)
    10/26/09
    25
  • 36. Feed Portal
    10/26/09
    26
  • 37. Architecture Web Portal
    10/26/09
    27
  • 38. Coffeeshops near Schools
    Coffeeshops
    Schools