سابِق|تال

A preliminary study of semantic virtual geographic environment in the context of wetland monitoring

  • role： First author第一作者
  • Affiliation：

    School of Geography and Environment & Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed Research, Ministry of Education, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China

  • Email：gisxx@jxnu.edu.cn
  • Introduction：肖昕，研究方向为知识图谱和虚拟地理环境。E-mail：gisxx@jxnu.edu.cn
XIAO Xin1,  
  • Affiliation：

    School of Geography and Environment & Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed Research, Ministry of Education, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China

CHEN Hao1,  
  • role： Corresponding author通信作者
  • Affiliation：

    Department of Information and Communication, Academy of Army Armored Forces, Beijing 100072, China

  • Email：xublmail@126.com
  • Introduction：徐丙立，研究方向为虚拟地理环境、地理协同等。E-mail：xublmail@126.com
XU Bingli2*,  
  • Affiliation：

    School of Geography and Environment & Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed Research, Ministry of Education, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China

FANG Chaoyang1,  
  • Affiliation：

    School of Geography and Environment & Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed Research, Ministry of Education, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China

LIN Hui1

ملخص

The abundance of geospatial big data has created unprecedented opportunities for the development of Virtual Geographic Environments (VGEs), but with the gradual ease of data acquisition, VGEs generally suffer from the problem of being “visual” but not “intelligent” and have yet to meet the demand for real-world geographic environments that are computable, manageable, and decision-ready. This paper first summarizes the challenges that geospatial big data pose to virtual geographic environments and proposes that improving the semantic interoperability of geospatial big data is the key to solving the aforementioned problems in virtual geographic environments. This involves using a machine-readable and human-understandable language to establish semantic relationships between data in a structured manner within virtual geographic environments. Therefore, the concept of Semantic Virtual Geographic Environments (SVGEs) is proposed. Semantic Virtual Geographic Environments use Semantic Web technologies such as ontologies and knowledge graphs to unify the description, management, and analysis of fragmented, unstructured, and non-explicitly related raw data generated by geographic objects and geographic processes in real-world environments with more standardized semantics, thus building a highly integrated digital geographic environment with data connectivity and interoperability. Semantic Virtual Geographic Environments are a type of virtual geographic environment that is semantically enhanced in the context of geospatial big data. SVGEs have characteristics such as knowledge-driven, semantic collaboration, and structural unity. Considering that the knowledge graph is the culmination of knowledge engineering in the era of big data, it can provide solutions for data knowledge organization and intelligent application in virtual geographical environment due to its powerful semantic expression ability, storage capacity and reasoning ability. Therefore, the semantic virtual geographic environment can use the knowledge graph as the formal expression of the real geographic environment, and form the mapping of the real geographic environment in the virtual space by integrating the real-time perception data and the interactive data information between the virtual and the real. Finally, this article takes wetland monitoring as an example and combines knowledge graph with virtual geographic environment to construct a semantic virtual geographic environment for wetland monitoring. Based on the characteristics of wetland monitoring data, conceptual modeling and formal expression of monitoring data were carried out, and a wetland monitoring ontology was constructed. The knowledge graph ontology can achieve a comprehensive, clear, and unambiguous description of monitoring data, laying the foundation for interoperability of monitoring data in virtual geographic environments. On the basis of wetland monitoring ontology, large-scale multi-source heterogeneous monitoring data is semantically mapped, achieving dual integration of isolated and scattered monitoring data in both logical and physical aspects in a virtual geographic environment. Then, the rich semantic relationships between monitoring data can be utilized to achieve knowledge-based search of monitoring data. In addition, the semantic virtual geographic environment also has strong inference ability, which can generate new knowledge through inference from native associated monitoring data, thus providing support for the comprehensive information management decision-making of wetlands. This study is a preliminary attempt to explore the theory, methods, and applications of semantic virtual geographic environments. However, further exploration is needed to truly achieve the full utilization of data in virtual geographic environments.

مفهوم

remote sensing;virtual geographic environment;semantic virtual geographic environment;Knowledge Graph;ontology;wetland monitoring

References

  1. 1.
    Akroyd J, Harper Z, Soutar D, Farazi F, Bhave A, Mosbach S and Kraft M. 2022. Universal Digital Twin: land use. Data-Centric Engineering, 3: e3
  2. 2.
    Akroyd J, Mosbach S, Bhave A and Kraft M. 2021. Universal Digital Twin - a dynamic knowledge graph. Data-Centric Engineering, 2: e14
  3. 3.
    Boje C, Guerriero A, Kubicki S and Rezgui Y. 2020. Towards a semantic Construction Digital Twin: directions for future research. Automation in Construction, 114: 103179
  4. 4.
    Buttigieg P L, Morrison N, Smith B, Mungall C J, Lewis S E and the ENVO Consortium. 2013. The environment ontology: contextualising biological and biomedical entities. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 4(1): 43
  5. 5.
    Calvanese D, Cogrel B, Komla-Ebri S, Kontchakov R, Lanti D, Rezk M, Rodriguez-Muro M and Xiao G H. 2017. Ontop: answering SPARQL queries over relational databases. Semantic Web, 8(3): 471-487
  6. 6.
    Chadzynski A, Li S Y, Grisiute A, Farazi F, Lindberg C, Mosbach S, Herthogs P and Kraft M. 2022. Semantic 3D City Agents—An intelligent automation for dynamic geospatial knowledge graphs. Energy and AI, 8: 100137
  7. 7.
    Chen H, Fang C Y and Xiao X. 2023. Visualization of environmental sensing data in the lake-oriented digital twin world: Poyang Lake as an example. Remote Sensing, 15(5): 1193
  8. 8.
    Compton M, Barnaghi P, Bermudez L, García-Castro R, Corcho O, Cox S, Graybeal J, Hauswirth M, Henson C, Herzog A, Huang V, Janowicz K, Kelsey W D, Le Phuoc D, Lefort L, Leggieri M, Neuhaus H, Nikolov A, Page K, Passant A, Sheth A and Taylor K. 2012. The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group. Journal of Web Semantics, 17: 25-32
  9. 9.
    Davidson N C, van Dam A A, Finlayson C M and McInnes R J. 2019. Worth of wetlands: revised global monetary values of coastal and inland wetland ecosystem services. Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(8): 1189-1194
  10. 10.
    General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China. 2010. GB/T 24708-2009 Wetland classification. Beijing: Standards Press of China
  11. 11.
    Goodchild M F. 2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4): 211-221
  12. 12.
    Hobbs J R and Pan F. 2006. Time ontology in OWL. W3C Working Draft, 27(133): 3-36
  13. 13.
    Hu Y J. 2018. Geospatial semantics//Huang B, Cova T J and Tsou M H, eds. Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems. Oxford: Elsevier: 80-94
  14. 14.
    Janowicz K, Haller A, Cox S J D, Le Phuoc D and Lefrançois M. 2019. SOSA: a lightweight ontology for sensors, observations, samples, and actuators. Journal of Web Semantics, 56: 1-10
  15. 15.
    Janowicz K, Hitzler P, Li W W, Rehberger D, Schildhauer M, Zhu R, Shimizu C, Fisher C K, Cai L, Mai G C, Zalewski J, Zhou L, Stephen S, Gonzalez S, Mecum B, Lopez-Carr A, Schroeder A, Smith D, Wright D, Wang S Z, Tian Y Y, Liu Z L, Shi M L, D'Onofrio A, Gu Z N and Currier K. 2022. Know, Know Where, KnowWhereGraph: a densely connected, cross-domain knowledge graph and geo-enrichment service stack for applications in environmental intelligence. AI Magazine, 43(1): 30-39
  16. 16.
    Jiang B C, Wan G, Xu J, Li F and Wen H Q. 2018. Geographic knowledge graph building extracted from multi-sourced heterogeneous data. Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 47(8): 1051-1061
  17. 17.
    Kümpel M, Mueller C A and Beetz M. 2021. Semantic digital twins for retail logistics//Freitag M, Kotzab H and Megow N, eds. Dynamics in Logistics: Twenty-Five Years of Interdisciplinary Logistics Research in Bremen, Germany. Cham: Springer International Publishing: 129-153
  18. 18.
    Li H, Zhang C X, Xiao Z W, Chen M, Lu D Q and Liu S H. 2021. A Web-based geo-simulation approach integrating knowledge graph and model-services. Environmental Modelling and Software, 144: 105160
  19. 19.
    Lin H and Chen M. 2014. Experimental geography based on virtual geographic environments (VGEs). Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 39(6): 689-694, 700
  20. 20.
    Lin H, Chen M, Lu G N, Zhu Q, Gong J H, You X, Wen Y N, Xu B L and Hu M Y. 2013. Virtual Geographic Environments (VGEs): a new generation of geographic analysis tool. Earth-Science Reviews, 126: 74-84
  21. 21.
    Lin H, Hu M Y, Chen M, Zhang F, You L and Chen Y T. 2020. Cognitive transformation from geographic information system to virtual geographic environments. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 22(4): 662-672
  22. 22.
    Lin H and You L. 2015. A tentative study on knowledge engineering for virtual geographic environments. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 17(12): 1423-1430
  23. 23.
    Lu F, Yu L and Qiu P Y. 2017. On geographic knowledge graph. Journal of Geo-information Science, 19(6): 723-734
  24. 24.
    Luo Q, Hu Z N, Wang Q M, Shi W W and Jia Y. 2023. Research on the progress of knowledge graph in GIS field. Journal of Geomatics, 48(1): 60-67
  25. 25.
    Masmoudi M, Karray M H, Ben Abdallah Ben Lamine S, Zghal H B and Archimede B. 2020. MEMOn: modular environmental monitoring ontology to link heterogeneous Earth observed data. Environmental Modelling and Software, 124: 104581
  26. 26.
    Mekonnen D, Price D, Hodges J, Masters J E, Cox S J D and Ray S. 2022. Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Types (QUDT) Schema - Version 2.1.21[EB/OL]. [2022-11-29].
  27. 27.
    Miller H J and Goodchild M F. 2015. Data-driven geography. GeoJournal, 80(4): 449-461
  28. 28.
    Oesterwind D, Rau A and Zaiko A. 2016. Drivers and pressures-Untangling the terms commonly used in marine science and policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 181: 8-15
  29. 29.
    Ontotext. 2023. Ontotext refine[EB/OL]. [2023-03-01].
  30. 30.
    Otte J N, Beverley J and Ruttenberg A. 2022. BFO: basic formal ontology. Applied Ontology, 17(1): 17-43
  31. 31.
    Pei T, Liu Y X, Guo S H, Shu H, Du Y Y, Ma T and Zhou C H. 2019. Principle of big geodata mining. Acta Geographica Sinica, 74(3): 586-598
  32. 32.
    Perry M and Herring J. 2023. OGC GeoSPARQL-A geographic query language for RDF data[EB/OL]. [2023-03-10].
  33. 33.
    Quek H Y, Sielker F, Akroyd J, Bhave A N, von Richthofen A, Herthogs P, van der Yamu C, Wan L, Nochta T, Burgess G, Lim M Q, Mosbach S and Kraft M. 2023. The conundrum in smart city governance: interoperability and compatibility in an ever-growing ecosystem of digital twins. Data and Policy, 5: e6
  34. 34.
    Rawson A, Sabeur Z and Brito M. 2022. Intelligent geospatial maritime risk analytics using the Discrete Global Grid System. Big Earth Data, 6(3): 294-322
  35. 35.
    Uber. 2023. H3: hexagonal hierarchical geospatial indexing system[EB/OL]. [2023-03-23].
  36. 36.
    Wang J L, Fu Z S, Qiao H X and Liu F X. 2019. Assessment of eutrophication and water quality in the estuarine area of Lake Wuli, Lake Taihu, China. Science of the Total Environment, 650: 1392-1402
  37. 37.
    Wang Y J, Fang C Y and Huang P. 2019. Construction of ecological security monitoring and early warning piatform of Poyang Lake wetland. Jiangxi Science, 37(6): 953-957, 996
  38. 38.
    Xiao X, Fang C Y, Lin H and Chen J F. 2022. A framework for quantitative analysis and differentiated marketing of tourism destination image based on visual content of photos. Tourism Management, 93: 104585
  39. 39.
    Xiao X, Lin H and Fang C Y. 2023. WMO: an ontology for the semantic enrichment of wetland monitoring data. International Journal of Digital Earth, 16(1): 2189-2211 .
  40. 40.
    Zhang X Y, Zhang C J, Wu M G and Lü G N. 2020. Spatio-temporal features based geographical knowledge graph construction. Scientia Sinica (Informationis), 50(7): 1019-1032
  41. 41.
    Zhou C H, Wang H, Wang C S, Hou Z Q, Zheng Z M, Shen S Z, Cheng Q M, Feng Z Q, Wang X B, Lü H R, Fan J X, Hu X M, Hou M C and Zhu Y Q. 2021. Geoscience knowledge graph in the big data era. Scientia Sinica Terrae, 64(7): 1105-1114
  42. 42.
    Zhu Y, Zheng J, Li X Y, Yang X L and He Y Q. 2021. Introduction to basic formal ontology and its Chinese version. Journal of Medical Informatics, 42(1): 24-28, 60
  43. 43.
    Zhu Y Q, Sun K, Hu X M, Lü H R, Wang X B, Yang J, Wang S, Li W R, Song J, Su N and Mu X L. 2023. Research and practice on the framework for the construction, sharing, and application of large-scale. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 25(6): 1215-1227

قراءة النص الكامل

The above content is generated by Large Model Translation. The translated content is for reference only. We do not assume any commercial or legal responsibilty for any consequences arising from the use of our website