The document outlines an analysis of 25 datasets collected from the Data.gov catalog. It categorizes the data providers, describes the dataset characteristics including namespace, ontology usage and annotation properties. It analyzes the concept coverage across datasets and performs case-based analysis of 3 datasets from the Department of Veterans Affairs to show similarities in concepts like state, city, and VISN codes. The conclusion notes the lack of a coherent government ontology and inconsistent vocabulary usage across datasets.

1. Linked Open Government Data
(LOGD): Ontology Usage
Experimental Results
Second Presentation
Nooshin Allahyari
1

2. Outlines
• Categorizing data provider
• Dataset collection
• Dataset characteristics
▫ Namespace
▫ Ontology Usage
▫ Annotation property
• Concept Coverage
• Case-Based Analysis
• Conclusion
Nooshin Allahyari
2

3. Categorizing data provider
• US Government Agencies
• Dividing agencies based on US Federal Government
Reference Model
• Each agency is in charge of publishing related datasets
• Data.gov catalog also provide topic related categorization
Nooshin Allahyari
3

4. Outlines
• Categorizing data provider
• Dataset collection
• Dataset characteristics
▫ Namespace
▫ Ontology Usage
▫ Annotation property
• Concept Coverage
• Case-Based Analysis
• Conclusion
Nooshin Allahyari
4

5. Dataset Collection
• All 25 Datasets collected from Data.gov
• Datasets are in RDF format
• Difficulties running huge datasets
• Using different tools As endpoint
▫ Virtuoso commercial version as SPARQL endpoint
 Easy to Install
 GUI
 Lots of visual tools
 SQL,SQL tools and connection tools.
• Increasing dataset number for reliability
Nooshin Allahyari
5

6. Outlines
• Categorizing data provider
• Dataset collection
• Dataset Composition Characteristics
▫ Namespace
▫ Ontology Usage
▫ Annotation property
• Concept Coverage
• Case-Based Analysis
• Conclusion
Nooshin Allahyari
6

7. NameSpace
Nooshin Allahyari
7
• Same Namespace usage for all datasets

8. Ontology Vocabulary Usage
• FEA Reference Model Ontology(RMO)
• Vocabulary Related to Government Context
▫ General Vocabulary
 Country
 State
 City
▫ Government programs, Services:
 Health Program
 Cultural Program
Nooshin Allahyari
8

9. Annotation Property
• Useful to provide additional information about
datasets. All datasets have:
▫ rdfs:lable
▫ Rdfs:comments
▫ No language tag or metadata
 Some datsets from Italy dataset catalog in TWC LOGD
contain Language Tag .
Nooshin Allahyari
9

10. Outlines
• Categorizing data provider
• Dataset collection
• Dataset characteristics
▫ Namespace
▫ Ontology Usage
▫ Annotation property
• Concept Coverage
• Case-Based Analysis
• Conclusion
Nooshin Allahyari
10

11. Concept Coverage
• Same Concept in all datasets
• Metadata for Data.gov wiki and TWC LOGD
Nooshin Allahyari
11
Prefix Concept
foaf Homepage
rdfs isDefinedBy
dcterms Source
dgtwc uses-property
dgtwc number-of-triples
dgtwc number-of-properties
dgtwc number-of-enteries

12. Concept Coverage
• General Concept Related Government
• Low Coverage of concept
• Multi-name concepts
Nooshin Allahyari
12
Concept Coverage(percentage)
State 48%
City 32%
State-Abbreviation 16%
Region 12%
Zip 12%
Country 8%
Country origin code 8%
Area code 8%

13. Outlines
• Categorizing data provider
• Dataset collection
• Dataset characteristics
▫ Namespace
▫ Ontology Usage
▫ Annotation property
• Concept Coverage
• Case-Based Analysis
• Conclusion
Nooshin Allahyari
13

14. Case-Based Analysis
• Three dataset from same agency in same
category
▫ Department of Veterans Affairs
 dataset1213
 dataset1288
 Dataset1290
• Result of each dataset queries shows all three of
them have similar concepts
 State
 City
 VISN
 Station
Nooshin Allahyari
14

15. Case-Based Analysis-1288
• The query lists all station with their specific code(VISN)
in each city and determine the state in which the city is
located in:
Nooshin Allahyari
15
SELECT DISTINCT ?city ?station ?visn ?st
WHERE
{
?s <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#city> ?city
OPTIONAL{ ?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#station> ?station}
OPTIONAL{?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#visn> ?visn}
OPTIONAL{?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#st> ?st}
}
State VISN Station City
"NJ" "3" "561" "East Orange"
"NY" "3" "620" "Montrose"
"NY" "3" "630"
"New York
Harbor"
"NY" "3" "632" "Northport"
"DE" "4" "460" "Wilmington"
"PA" "4" "503" "Altoona"
"PA" "4" "529" "Butler"
"WV" "4" "540" "Clarksburg"

16. Case-Based Analysis-1290
• The query lists all station with their specific code(VISN)
in each city and determine the state in which the city is
located in:
Nooshin Allahyari
16
SELECT DISTINCT ?city ?station ?visn ?st
WHERE
{
?s <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#city> ?city
OPTIONAL{ ?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#station> ?station}
OPTIONAL{?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#visn> ?visn}
OPTIONAL{?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-
1288.rdf#st> ?st}
}
State VISN Station City
"ME" "1" "402" "Togus"
"VT" "1" "405"
"White River
Junction"
"MA" "1" "518" "Bedford"
"MA" "1" "523" "West Roxbury"
"NH" "1" "608" "Manchester"
"MA" "1" "631" "Northampton"
"RI" "1" "650" "Providence"
"CT" "1" "689" "West Haven"

17. Case-Based Analysis-1213
• The query lists all station with their specific code(VISN)
in each city and determine the state in which the city is
located in:
Nooshin Allahyari
17
SELECT DISTINCT ?visn ?city ?state
WHERE
{
?s <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1213/dataset-1213.rdf#visn>
?visn.
?s <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1213/dataset-1213.rdf#city>
?city.
?s <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1213/dataset-1213.rdf#state>
?state
}
State VISN City
"CT" "1" "West Haven"
"MA" "1" "Bedford"
"MA" "1" "West Roxbury"
"MA" "1" "Northampton"
"ME" "1" "Togus"
"NH" "1" "Manchester"
"RI" "1" "Providence"
"VT" "1" "White River Junction"

18. Case-Based Analysis-1206
• Dataset 1206 similarities
Nooshin Allahyari
18
VISN STATE Facility-name City
"1" "CT" "VA Connecticut HCS" "West Haven"
"1" "MA"
"Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial
Veterans Hospital"
"Bedford"
"1" "MA"
"VA Boston HCSW Roxbury Brockton
Jamaica Plns"
"West Roxbury"
"1" "MA" "VAMC" "Northampton"
"1" "ME" "VAMC/RO" "Togus"
"1" "NH" "VAMC" "Manchester"
"1" "RI" "VAMC" "Providence"
"1" "VT" "VAM/ROC"
"White River
Junction"
SELECT DISTINCT ?state ?facilityname ?city
?visn
WHERE
{
?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/12
06/dataset-1206.rdf#visn> ?visn.
?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/12
06/dataset-1206.rdf#state> ?state.
?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/12
06/dataset-1206.rdf#city> ?city.
?s
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/12
06/dataset-1206.rdf#facility_name>
?facilityname
}

19. Case-Based Analysis-Comparison
• We need to explicitly define “owl:sameAs” property for
similar properties in order to get query results:
Nooshin Allahyari
19
SELECT DISTINCT ?state ?city
WHERE
{ GRAPH <http://localhost8890/vad/dataset1288>
{
?s1 <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-1288.rdf#st >?state.
?s1 <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-1288.rdf#city> ?city .
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-1288.rdf#st>
owl:sameAs
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1290/dataset-1290.rdf#st> .
http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-1288.rdf#city
Owl:sameAs
http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1290/dataset-1290.rdf#city.
}
GRAPH <http://localhost8890/vad/dataset1290>
{
?s2 <<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1290/dataset-1290.rdf#st> ?st.
?s2 <http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1290/dataset-1290.rdf#city> ?city.
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1290/dataset-1290.rdf#st>
owl:sameAs
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-1288.rdf#st>.
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1290/dataset-1290.rdf#city>
Owl:sameAs
<http://www.data.gov/semantic/data/alpha/1288/dataset-1288.rdf#city>.
}}order by ?state
State City
"CT" "West Haven"
"MA" "Bedford"
"MA" "West Roxbury"
"MA" "Northampton"
"ME" "Togus"
"NH" "Manchester"
"RI" "Providence"
"VT" "White River Junction"

20. Outlines
• Categorizing data provider
• Dataset collection
• Dataset characteristics
▫ Namespace
▫ Ontology Usage
▫ Annotation property
• Concept Coverage
• Case-Based Analysis
• Conclusion
Nooshin Allahyari
20

21. Conclusion
• No Government ontology have been used in
experimental datasets
• Weak vocabulary usage in US Government
• Multi-vocabulary usage for same concept
• Multi-vocabulary usage in same government agency
• Lack of well defined, coherent, and consistent
government ontology.
Nooshin Allahyari
21

22. Thank you
Nooshin Allahyari
22