Rogier Meerlo’s scientific contributions

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (1)


Figure 1: Methods for spatially combining polygon data. Which one is applicable for analysing a given polygon data set?
Figure 2: Map data sources used to assess liveability, cf. https://maps.amsterdam.nl/ open geodata/ and https://cbsinuwbuurt.nl/.
Figure 3: Liveability map showing average distance to green areas in Amsterdam within PC4 areas.
Figure 6: The difference between a field (Coverage) and an object (Lattice) tessellation in terms of self-similarity. Land cover is an example for a coverage, and average elevation is an example for a lattice. The attribute located at the cross is determinable for the coverage, but not for the lattice. Cf. [55].
Figure 7: Matrix of data types based on combining geometric layer types with spatial core concepts. Combinations are formalized with DL class constructors, and empty cells are deprecated combinations, as explained in the text. Note that the class tessellation intersects with both raster and vector, so matrix cells are not mutually exclusive.

+1

Ontology of core concept data types for answering geo-analytical questions
  • Article
  • Full-text available

June 2020

·

1,291 Reads

·

22 Citations

Journal of Spatial Information Science

·

Rogier Meerlo

·

·

In geographic information systems (GIS), analysts answer questions by designing workflows that transform a certain type of data into a certain type of goal. Semantic data types help constrain the application of computational methods to those that are meaningful for such a goal. This prevents pointless computations and helps analysts design effective workflows. Yet, to date it remains unclear which types would be needed in order to ease geo-analytical tasks. The data types and formats used in GIS still allow for huge amounts of syntactically possible but nonsensical method applications. Core concepts of spatial information and related geo-semantic distinctions have been proposed as abstractions to help analysts formulate analytic questions and to compute appropriate answers over geodata of different formats. In essence, core concepts reflect particular interpretations of data which imply that certain transformations are possible. However, core concepts usually remain implicit when operating on geodata, since a concept can be represented in a variety of forms. A central question therefore is: Which semantic types would be needed to capture this variety and its implications for geospatial analysis? In this article, we propose an ontology design pattern of core concept data types that help answer geo-analytical questions. Based on a scenario to compute a liveability atlas for Amsterdam, we show that diverse kinds of geo-analytical questions can be answered by this pattern in terms of valid, automatically constructible GIS workflows using standard sources.

Download

Citations (1)


... With its powerful capabilities, GeoKG is becoming a driving engine for geo-intelligence applications, such as Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) systems ), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) analyzers (Fotopoulou et al. 2022), and Virtual Geographic Environments (VGEs) models (Lü et al. 2018), which is expected to be a geo-brain in the future (Kuhn, Kauppinen, and Janowicz 2014;Li et al. 2020;Zhou et al. 2021). Thus, GeoKG has been highly concerned by the geoscience community, and has carried out a series of works, such as formalization research (Wang et al. 2019;Zhang et al. 2020;Zheng et al. 2022), embedding representation & calculation (Mai et al. 2020;Qiu et al. 2019), case construction (Demidova et al. 2022;Deng et al. 2021;Dsouza et al. 2021;Du et al. 2022;Guo et al. 2021;Ma 2022;Shbita et al. 2020;Sun et al. 2021;Wang et al. 2022), geographic question answering (Jiang et al. 2019;Mai et al. 2019Mai et al. , 2021Scheider et al. 2020), visualization (Huang and Harrie 2020;Li et al. 2021), and recommendation applications (Del Mondo et al. 2021;Gao et al. 2020;Xu et al. 2022;Zeng et al. 2022). At present, the demand for GeoKG applications is growing rapidly, including spatio-temporal reasoning, summary, recommendation, tracking, and Q&A (Fotopoulou et al. 2022;Gao et al. 2020;Mai et al. 2020;Yan et al. 2019). ...

Reference:

Review, framework, and future perspectives of Geographic Knowledge Graph (GeoKG) quality assessment
Ontology of core concept data types for answering geo-analytical questions

Journal of Spatial Information Science