p ragmatics and g eo-ontologies brodaric, 07-03-2007, edinburgh the pragmatics of geo-ontologies,...

Pragmatics and Geo-OntologiesBrodaric, 07-03-2007, Edinburgh

The Pragmatics of Geo-ontologies, and the Ontology of Geo-pragmatics

Boyan Brodaric, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa

2


Connectivity resources

E-Geoscience

Theories, conceptsKnowledge representation

Observations, measurements, experimentsInstrumentation

Information: real-time, archives, analysesInformatics resources

Models, simulationsSupercomputing

PeopleCollaboration,

visualization, education resources

ONTOLOGIES• contain concepts used in scientific theories, classifications, schema, …

3


Geologic structure (USArray)Geologic structure (USArray)

RuptureRupturedynamicsdynamics(SAFOD, (SAFOD, ANSS,ANSS,

USArray)USArray)InSAR Image of theHector Mine Earthquake

A satellitegeneratedInterferometricSynthetic Radar(InSAR) image ofthe 1999 HectorMine earthquake.

Shows thedisplacement fieldin the direction ofradar imaging

Each fringe (e.g.,from red to red)corresponds to afew centimeters ofdisplacement.

SeismicHazardModel

Seismicity (ANSS)Seismicity (ANSS) PaleoseismologyPaleoseismology Local site effectsLocal site effects

Faults Faults (USArray)(USArray)

Stress Stress transfertransfer(InSAR, (InSAR,

PBO,PBO,SAFOD)SAFOD)

Crustal motion (PBO)Crustal motion (PBO) Crustal deformation (InSAR)Crustal deformation (InSAR) Seismic velocity (USArray)Seismic velocity (USArray)(from Leinen, 2004)

E-geoscience example: data integration in hazard modeling

4


GEON Grid

Montana

Idaho

Nevada

Utah

Arizona

New Mexico

Colorado

Wyoming

E-geoscience example: geologic map data integration

5


Levels of Map Data Interoperability

systems

syntax

schematic

semantic

Map System 1

systems

syntax

schematic

semantic

Map System 2Integrated Map

Data Content (GeoOntology)

Data Structure (GeoSciML)

Data Language (GML)

Data Services (WMS, WFS, WCS)

6


from www.GEONgrid.org

Systems Interoperability aligning data system interfaces (web services) but: heterogeneous structure, content, interpretation

STANDARD DATA INTERFACES• different data systems• e.g. open geospatial web services (OGC)

7


GEOLOGIC AGE ROCK TYPE

but: heterogeneous data content, interpretation


Schematic Interoperability aligning heterogeneous data structures (geometry, attributes)

STANDARD SCHEMA• for data transfer

8


GML

Client

WMS WFS

WMSWFS

WMSWFS

WMSWFS

WMSWFS

WMSWFS

USGS schema

BRGM schema

GSC schema

BGS schema

SGU schema

GA schema

GeoSciML

GeoSciML

GeoSciML

GeoSciML

GeoSciML

GeoSciML

Australia

Sweden

UK

France

USA

Canada

Example of Schematic Interoperability GeoSciML Testbed 2 • multiple viewers

• custom tools

• many databases• local data control

• standard system interface• custom translator• one output data format

9


GEOLOGIC AGE ROCK TYPE

Volcanic


Semantic Interoperability aligning heterogeneous definitions for data content but: heterogeneous interpretation at map borders

synonymy

STANDARD DEFINITIONS• data content: rock types, time scale, …• data schema

Era

Eon

Period

Series

polysemy

10


sandstone

arenite

slate

grès

arénite

french

englishworkflows

queries

e.g. find all map units with sedimentary rocks

Ontologies can define any resource in e-geoscience, e.g. data and services

Semantic Interoperability

metadata geospatial projection common concepts in metadata

slate sandstone

rock typegeol. unit

geol. concept

sandstone

slate

grès

ardoise

classifications

schema

ontology

sedimentary

vocabulary

common vocabulary

common concepts in content

common concepts in schema

11


Example of Semantic Interoperability GEON Map Integrator Testbed


“paleozoic”

“paleozoic,

sedimentary”

12


Trust

XML

Ontology

Logic

Proof

Social World

Pragmatics

Semantics

Syntax

Empirics

Physics

Systems

Schematics

Semantics

Consensus

Syntaxdata

information

wise use

knowledge

Unicode URI

RDF

Knowledge management

Semantic Web

Information Interoperability Computational

Semiotics

Levels of Meaning A theory for pragmatics… how does it apply to E-Geoscience?

What?ontologic… definitions

Why? How?pragmatic… explanations

13



Pragmatic Interoperability aligning heterogeneous scientific contexts involves actions carried out by agents (e.g. scientists)

Differences in:• geometry• geohistory• description• classification

• ontologic defs help little in selecting which version to trust• trust also requires explanatory context for:

- assessment- replication- verification

14


Levels of Map Data Interoperability

systems

syntax

schematic

semantic

Map System 1

systems

syntax

schematic

semantic

Map System 2Integrated Map

Data Content (GeoOntology)

Data Structure (GeoSciML)

Data Language (GML)

Data Services (WMS, WFS, WCS)

pragmatic pragmatic Data Context (Geologist)

15


Semiotic Semantics relation of sign to object (Morris, 1938)

sign

Formation Ted / T1 definition

symbolobject

concept1..n

1..m1..msynonymy

1..npolysemy

1..n

possible worlds

1..m

16


Semiotic Pragmatics relation of sign to agent (Morris, 1938)

origins, effects and uses of sign by agent

sign

Formation Ted / T1 definition

symbolobject

concept

cons

umes

interpretsproduces

agent

17


Agents human, machine, nature matrix of processes

HumanSign producer

MachineSign producer

NatureSign producer

HumanSign consumer

CommunicationCognitionScientific Reasoning

VisualizationAnalysis

ObservationMeasurement

MachineSign consumer

Human-Computer Interface

WorkflowsService ChainsMachine Reasoning

Earth Sensors

NatureSign consumer

Human-Nature Interface

Machine-Nature Interface

Natural Processes

18


interpret

produceA

consume

sign2

rock1

<Baker Brook basalt rdf_id=”unit_102”>

<rock_type rdf:resource="#extrusive"/>

<rock_environment rdf:resource="#marine"/>

</Baker_Brook_basalt>

<gsml:LithodemicUnit gml:id="ca.gc.nrcan.gdr.geologicUnit.8130">

<gml:name>X3Y1</gml:name>

<gsml:metadata xlink:href="urn:x-ogc:def:nil:OGC:unknown" />

<gsml:unitThickness xlink:href="urn:x-ogc:def:nil:OGC:unknown" />

<gsml:composition>

<gsml:CGI_TermValue>

<gsml:value codeBase="http://www.cgi-iugs.org/composition">mafic </gsml:value>

</gsml:CGI_TermValue>

GeoSciML

sign1

OWL concept1rock1

web service client

E.g. Geospatial Info. Pragmatics

19


Origin of sign2 Effect of sign1

Object2

sign2

Concept2

Symbol2Symbol1

Object1

sign1

Concept1

A

1

interpret1

consume1 produce1

Event1

A

0

Event0

A

2

Event2

Process1

Ontology of Pragmatics

Use of sign1

20


(from GEON: Ludaescher, 2003, adapted from Sinha, A.K)

Rock classification from mineral composition

origin

use

effect

Machine Pragmatics--Workflows

provenance consequence

21


Origin of Sign = { < Sign >, Event, Agent, < Origin of Sign > }

Effect of Sign = < Sign, Event, Agent, Effect of Sign >

Use of Sign = < Event, Process >

Context of Sign = { Origin of Sign, Effect of Sign, Use of Sign }

Pragmatic Context

22


property prototype object

concept

origins

effects

objects

properties

Geo(science)-Pragmatics

Geoscience objects are inferred from properties due to inaccessibility:

geospatial temporal

Fundamentally geoscientific :

ecology soils geologic remote-sensing

23


sign1

sign2

Prototype Property

Object Property

Object Property

Property Prototype

A

Property Prototype

A

Object Concept

Object Concept

Object

A

A

Object

Object Concept

sign3

Object Object Property

sign4

Individuation event

classification event

blending event

clustering event

Ontology of Geo-Pragmatics

geoscience concept & object development

24


Representing geo-pragmatics

C: intra-geologist thematic clustering

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Time (weeks)

Dis

tan

ce M

MD

(m

ean

)

Concept C

periods of concept discovery in geologic map dataperiods of concept discovery in geologic map dataperiods of concept discovery in geologic map data (origins)

Analysis of geologic map data

ClusterMembershipSituationMembership

BlendMembership

InstanceOf

Clustering

1..*1..*

Individuation

1..*1..*

Blending

1..*1..*

Classification 1..*1..*

Cluster

IndividualOrigin

Situation

ConceptOrigin

Blend

Class

1..*1..*

Individual

0..*

1..*

0..*

clusterMember 1..*

1..*1..*

situate

0..*

1..*

0..*

instance

1..*

0..*

1..*

0..*

situationMember1..*

Concept

0..*0..*

intension

0..*

1..*

0..*

blendMember

1..*

0..10..1

extension

AttributionMembership

Attribution

0..*

1..*

0..*

1..*

0..10..1

instantiate

Instantiation

1..*1..*

GIS structure for pragmatic context of geo-concepts

Representing pragmatic contexts for geo-concepts

25


Observed properties of C

Pragmatic Context for rock unit C to aid trust evaluation

Origin for properties of C

26


Conclusions first steps to an ontologic theory of geoscience context oriented around agent processes and events needed for trust evaluation in E-Geoscience

Implications ‘metadata’ for concepts (vs ontologies, schema, data, ...) origin rep. necessary for ‘situated concepts’

Future Work E-Geoscience / Semantic Web implementation? Coordination with upper-level process ontologies?

27


Acknowledgements Geological Survey of Canada GeoVISTA Center, Penn State Geography (M. Gahegan) GEON (K. Lin, A.K. Sinha, B. Ludaescher) TGIS, Semantic Web Special Issue (F. Fonseca) IUGS-CGI GeoSciML Team

28


29


Questions?

p ragmatics and g eo-ontologies brodaric, 07-03-2007, edinburgh the pragmatics of geo-ontologies,...

Documents