Spatial Planning On The Semantic Web Terracognita 2009


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

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.
  • Spatial Planning On The Semantic Web Terracognita 2009

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