Each atlas has diff classification

schoolmistInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

22 Οκτ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 2 μήνες)

144 εμφανίσεις

II.

Technical Considerations


As mentioned before, c
urrent inventories
within coastal atlases are
insufficient
for the
purposes of networking
between

them.
Each atlas has different classifications of data and
information

(e.g., critical informa
tion on coastal erosion that may be needed across a
broad geographic region as supplied by several different atlases).

B
ut the question
remains as to how best to access this through a common point without searching
aimlessly within each separate atlas.


I
n this section we describe a

proof
-
of
-
concept

prototype in
d
evelopment

to maintain
communication between
2

atlases,
thus
ensuring the

synchronization of metadata

and
other information between them.
User of the super
-
atlas ontology as a way to get the
res
ult. A local sysadmin person has a need for the super
-
atlas ontology as a means of
being interoperable
.


Our proof
-
of
-
concept starts with just two atlases, the Oregon Coastal Atlas (OCA),
www.coastalatlas.net
,
in
itiatived in 2000, and the Marine Irish Digital Atlas (MIDA),
mida.ucc.ie, initiated in 2002.

In order to bring together two atlases with similar yet
disparate content (thematically and semanti
c
ally), we are devising
ontology catalogues
for the atlases (MI
DA.owl and OCA.owl
).
The .owl extension to the files means that we
will be using
OWL
(
Web Ontology Language
), which

is designed for use by applications
that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to
humans

(
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl
-
features/
).
OWL thereby explicitly represents

ontologies

(i.e., the meaning of terms in controlled vocabularies and the relationships
between those terms).
An ontology p
rovides a common structure to facilitate
interoperability (e.g., sharing data) between atlases.

The prototype will consist of

an
Owl
interfaces plus registries


Oregon and Ireland may not necessarily need to be interoperable, but these are 2 mature
atlas efforts that we can use as a testbed
. Both provide

interactive access to spatia
l data
and metadata via web GIS, use
similar technologies (open source
Minnesota
MapServer
running on

Apache

web services
), and contain metadata meeting national/internati
onal
standards

(i.e., I
SO and FGDC).

Then given the success

of the prototype it

could be
reproduced and implemented by 2 or more

additional

partners who really do need to be
interoperable (such as MIDA with atlases in the UK or Belgium o
r wi
th a broader
Eu
ropean Atlas, or

Oregon with
the Washington coastal atlas or efforts in California)
.

This would be the seed application, the template that could be used by
many others and
grow from there

(
a super ontology that other efforts could link into
).


In
anticipation of
servicing a much broader network of coastal atlases and the
communities that they serve,
w
e will also develop a
n upper level global ontology
(

SuperAtlas

)

that we agree upon

as a
community (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Flow c
hart of o
ntologies

to be developed for the ICAN proof
-
of
-
concept.


This Super
Atlas

structure

will:



Connect multiple coastal web atlases via a
distributed network
.



Be based on
community
-
held constraints

on mapping and presentation conventions,
d
eveloped to maximize the comparability and reliability of information about our
coasts
.



Allow
integrated

searching

for data in multiple atlases.



Return data displayed in an
integrated web map
.



Provide a
framework

for atlas development initiatives.



Facilitate

cross
-
jurisdictional collaboration, planning and management.



Encourage
harmonisation

among the global

atlas community.


The

SuperAtlas structure will
not

be a global coastal atlas. I
nstead, it will provide a
recommended framework f
or building regional coastal atlas communities.


Tasks:



MIDA and OCA to develop local control
led vocabularies and ontologies focused on
coastal erosion as described in the previous use case section.



Create a global ontology based on local ontologies.



Develop prototype web interface to facilitate distrib
uted querying and visuali
sation of
data from both atlases.



To
make the ontologies accessible

facilitate

w
e will implement g
eneral registration of
the ontologies
using

Open Geospatial Consortium

CS
W

(catalog service for the web
),

with ISO 19139 (
an
impleme
ntation of 19155)
, as well as
WMS

(web mapping
services)

and WFS (web feature services) (Figure 2).

T
his is
an advance from prior
approaches

where ontologies were

developed but it was difficult to make them
accessible via open, stand
ardized approaches.




Design and implement a semantic mediator tool to perform queries, return results.



Prototype e
valuation
and
i
mprovement



Review
the
ways forward for 3
rd

workshop in July 2008.



Figure
2
. Schematic of SuperAtlas hie
rarchy
.



As an example of how this will work,
i
f
a coastal
planner needs to m
ake a map of or
obtain data about a s
pecific coastal erosion zone he
/she

would

(Figure 3
)
:

1. Define geographic extent: Area or name of place

2. Categorize or state hazard of interest

3. Draw all layers that have hazard and create legend




Figure
3
.
S
pecific example of
how coastal erosion use case might be understood by the
user and structured in

an ontology.



[
More text to wrap this up, emphasize how terrific this will be, and
lead into the Future Directions part of the white paper

.
]