Dieter Roosens, Kris McGlinn, Christophe Debruyne: Using Maps for Interlinking Geospatial Linked Data. OTM Conferences 2019: 209-226. Presented at COOPIS 2019, 2019-10-23 @ Rhodes

1. Using Maps for Interlinking
Geospatial Linked Data
Dieter Roosens1, Kris McGlinn2, and
Christophe Debruyne1,2
1 WISE Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
2 ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin
Presented at COOPIS 2019

2. Preamble
data.geohive.ie: Ordnance Survey
Ireland (OSi) publishing their
authoritative geospatial
information starting from publicly
available boundary and building
data supporting two use cases:
providing different representations
of geometries and capture
evolution of geometries.
How can we facilitate others in
engaging with (and create links to)
their data?
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 2

3. Context and Problem
• The creation of links within and across datasets is key for the creation of
a Linked Data Web.
• SotA often focusses on the creation of interlinks in a (semi-)automatic
manner.
• Observation 1: A survey conducted by McKenna et al. (2018) showed
the importance of manually creating authoritative interlinks.
• Observation 2: Many datasets on the Linked Data Web have a
geospatial or geographic component.
• Research Question: Can maps be used to create and manage interlinks
of geospatial data on the Linked Data web?
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 3

4. Related work
• The SotA on interlinking focuses mostly on the (semi-)automatic
creation of interlinks. E.g., in a declarative manner or with ML
techniques. Some have support for geospatial functions.
• What about the use of maps?
• YASGUI: SPARQL editor with support for displaying results on a map
• STRABON: a triplestore with support for displaying results on a map
• FACETE: a faceted browser with support for displaying results
• GVIZ allows one to draw polygons on a map for the creation of a
query
• Some of the SotA mentioned in the paper were related to the EU
FP7 GeoKnow project.
• To the best of our knowledge, no tools supports the creation of
interlinks using maps.
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 4

5. Design and Development
• Maps are mostly used to display results
• Appropriate tooling for subject matter experts (non-technical) is lacking
• We formulated the following requirements
1. Search for geospatial resources in a Linked Data dataset;
2. Display the results on a map;
3. Engage with the resources on the map for the creation of interlinks;
4. Manage the created interlinks;
5. Keep track of provenance information.
• Requirements 2, 3, and 4 are key to our study
• Requirement 1 provides a starting point
• Requirement 5 allows for solutions to be integrated (in future work)
https://github.com/dieterroosens/LinkedDataApplication
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 5

6. Design and Development:
Searching for Resources
We have chosen to adopt Faceted Browsing.
Unfortunately, we were unable to adopt Facete (unable to compile and
run both versions) and SemFacet (no support for geospatial information).
A minimal viable faceted browser was developed for the purpose of the
experiment
Facets are used to create a SPARQL
query. Each facet results in an
additional triple pattern. The query
also looks for an optional geometry
and a label (with a preference for
English labels, followed by default
labels).
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 6

7. Design and Development:
Creating and Managing Interlinks
Adoption of ConcurTaskTrees (CTTs) to design the steps in each tasks.
Given a CTT, an algorithm provides information how an appropriate UI
might look like (Mori et al, 2002).
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 8

8. Experiment: Protocol
1. Read and sign an informed consent form;
2. Fill in a pre-questionnaire (prior knowledge);
3. Video with a quick introduction to RDF and Linked Data;
4. Slides with annotated screenshots and key points of the video were at
the participants’ disposal;
5. Perform 8 tasks in a think aloud manner;
6. Fill in a post-questionnaire (PSSUQ) to assess the tool.
12 participants were recruited within the lead researcher’s network at
home, work, and the VUB. Four participants were recruited within TCD.
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 10

9. Experiment: Tasks
Creating links from GeoHive to
DBpedia and GeoNames and within
GeoHive:
1. From County Dublin to same
resource in DBpedia (URI
provided)
2. From County Donegal to same
resource in DBpedia
(participants has to look for URI)
3. Find Wicklow Mountains in
DBpedia and declare it to be
within the right county.
4. Find the four counties that
border County Cork and assert
four geo:sf-touches relations
5. Look for the highest mountain,
find its corresponding resource
in DBpedia, and create the
interlink
6. Look for a specific shop in
County Dublin and declare it to
be within GeoNames’
representation of that County
7. Look and correct any mistakes in
the interlinks (one was
introduced)
8. Download the interlinks
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 11

10. Results: Prior Knowledge
Participant OWL RDF TTL GEO Total
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 1 1
4 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0
10 2 3 3 1 9
11 2 3 3 2 10
12 3 3 3 2 11
13 2 1 1 1 5
14 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 12

11. Results: Task Performance
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 13
Participant
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Task6
Task7
Task8
Percentage
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Task6
Task7
Task8
Percentage
1 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00
2 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00
3 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 75.00
4 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 71.88 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 78.13
5 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 65.63 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 65.63
6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 87.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 87.50
7 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 78.13 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 78.13
8 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 71.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 71.88
9 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00
10 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 68.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 81.25
11 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 50.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 68.75
12 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87.50
13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 68.75
14 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 81.25
15 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93.75
16 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 56.25 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 68.75
AVG: 0.94 0.25 0.75 0.81 0.75 0.13 0.94 1.00 69.53 0.94 0.56 0.75 0.81 0.88 0.28 0.94 1.00 76.95
w.r.t. Gold Standard w.r.t. Silver Standard
• Most seemed to have problems with
content negotiation. They looked for
DBpedia resources via a search
engine, but copies the page’s URI
instead of that of the resource.
• Only two found the correct resource
in GeoNames, and one participant
knew it was tricky. Others often
chose the URI corresponding to
Dublin City.
• Some misread the tasks and
continued creating links with DBpedia
instead of within (task4) or
GeoNames (task6)
• What if we gave ”partial credit” with
a silver standard?

12. Results: Task Performance
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 14
Participant
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Task6
Task7
Task8
Percentage
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Task6
Task7
Task8
Percentage
1 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00
2 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00
3 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 75.00
4 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 71.88 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 78.13
5 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 65.63 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 65.63
6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 87.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 87.50
7 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 78.13 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 78.13
8 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 71.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 71.88
9 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 75.00
10 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 68.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 81.25
11 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 50.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 68.75
12 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87.50
13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 68.75
14 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 62.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 81.25
15 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93.75
16 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 56.25 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 68.75
AVG: 0.94 0.25 0.75 0.81 0.75 0.13 0.94 1.00 69.53 0.94 0.56 0.75 0.81 0.88 0.28 0.94 1.00 76.95
w.r.t. Gold Standard w.r.t. Silver Standard

13. PSSUQ: Perceived Usability
• 19 Questions
• System’s usefulness questions 1 to 8
• Information quality questions 9 to 15
• Interface quality questions 16 to 18
• Overall 1 to 19
• Inverted Likert scale from 1 completely agree
(positive) to 7 completely disagree (negative).
There was room for comments.
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 15

14. PSSUQ: Perceived Usability
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 16
Most values are close to 3, which is not terrific but leans towards a favorable
impression. Only exception is question 9.

15. PSSUQ: Perceived Usability
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 17
Question 9: “The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix
problems.” 3 participants did not provide an answer.

16. Results
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 19
• Task performance vs. system usefulness with p = 0.0061
• Task performance vs. overall with p = 0.019
• The data thus seem to indicate that as task performance
goes up, the perceived system’s usefulness and overall
usability are more appreciated.

17. Conclusions and Future Work
• Linked Data interlinking requires tools that subject matter experts can
use. The SotA, however, often looks at the (semi-)automatic creation of
links. In this paper, we wanted to investigate whether maps can be
useful for linking data with a geospatial component.
• We proposed an approach and, while limited, data seem to indicate the
approach is viable. Data indicates that Linked Data principles seem to
cause problems.
• Future work includes the support for GML and other geospatial
vocabularies (implementation) and the inclusion of the tool in a wider
governance scenario (research).
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 20

18. References
• Debruyne, C., Meehan, A., Clinton, E., McNerney, L., Nautiyal, A., Lavin, P., O’Sullivan, D.:
Ireland’s authoritative geospatial linked data. In: d’Amato, C., Fer-nández, M., Tamma, V.A.M.,
Lécué, F., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Sequeda, J.F., Lange, C., He-flin, J. (eds.) The Semantic Web - ISWC
2017 - 16th International Semantic Web Con-ference, Vienna, Austria, October 21-25, 2017,
Proceedings, Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10588, pp. 66–74. Springer (2017).
• McKenna, L., Debruyne, C., O’Sullivan, D.: Understanding the position of information
professionals with regards to linked data: A survey of libraries, archives and museums. In: Chen,
J., Gonçalves, M.A., Allen, J.M., Fox, E.A., Kan, M., Petras, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th
ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL 2018, Fort Worth, TX, USA, June 03-07,
2018. pp. 7–16. ACM (2018).
• Mori, G., Paternò, F., Santoro, C.: CTTE: support for developing and analyzing task models for
interactive system design. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(8), 797–813 (2002).
10/23/19 christophe.debruyne@adaptcentre.ie 21