DG Joint Research Center
Study and guidelines on
Geospatial Linked Data as part
of ISA Action 1.17
Resource Description Framework
13th of March 2014
Danny Vandenbroucke
Diederik Tirry
Agenda
Click to edit Master title style
1
Introduction
2
Context
3
Literature study results
4
Sharing your experience – Issues/Challenges?
5
Next steps - Experiments
2
Introduction
Today’s webinar
1. Setting
the scene
2. Developing
proposals
Click toWeedit
Master
style
will provide
an outline title
of the study
and
our work so far.
This webinar is also an opportunity to provide
feedback and to exchange experiences: where
could INSPIRE RDF be used in e-government?
WEBINAR II Guidelines on
methodologies
3. Refinement &
recommendations
METHODOLOGIES
Presentation of the first version of the
guidelines for a common RDF Vocabulary for
INSPIRE data and an approach to PID
governance: opportunities for communityled improvements and next steps towards
an official INSPIRE encoding.
Resource
Description
Framework
(RDF)
3
Agenda
Click to edit Master title style
1
Introduction
2
Context
3
Literature study results
4
Sharing your experience – Issues/Challenges?
5
Next steps - Experiments
4
Context
This study has been prepared in the context of
the Interoperability for European PublicClick to
Administrations (ISA) Programme and, in
particular A Reusable INSPIRE Reference
Platform (ARE3NA, ISA Action 1.17)
This study should provide:
edit Master title style
Connecting Geospatial Data
1. Shared evidence about the current status
in Europe of linked (geospatial) data
related to INSPIRE.
2. An initial common/agreed methodology
and guidelines towards RDF encodings for
INSPIRE
3. Recommendations for how location PIDs
could be governed for INSPIRE and other
relevant activities.
5
Context
12/12
INSPIRE
to edit
Interoperability of geospatial data sets Click
and services
through harmonised data models and encodings
for the exchange of data related to one of the 34
spatial data themes
1.
2.
Master title style
Data models using UML at conceptual level
Encoding using GML based on encoding rules
Several European project and national initiatives
using publishing geospatial data as Linked Data
 Using the Resource Description Framework (RDF)
However
 No agreed rules or guidelines on how to create
such RDF vocabularies from the UML models
6
Agenda
Click to edit Master title style
1
Introduction
2
Context
3
Literature study results
4
Sharing your experience – Issues/Challenges?
5
Next steps - Experiments
7
Current State and State of the Art
Literature selection and review approach
Compile and examine relevant, existingClick
studiesto
•
edit Master title style
External publications from presentations, technical reports, papers and books (see list)
Describe different projects/initiatives at the European, national and sub-national
levels, in the form of an overview table, including the approach followed
•
Most of the literature is related to (pilot) projects that took/are taking place in some
Member States, among others The Netherlands, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Belgium or
in European projects such as GeoKnow
A selection of different projects/initiatives will be analyzed in more detail based
upon agreed criteria
•
The focus for this part of the analysis will be on the technical aspects of the
transformation of UML models into RDF
The literature analysis is currently ongoing
•
The literature overview for RDF/UML is presented in the table below
8
Literature study results
Author(s)
Date
Folmer, E., Reuvers, M., &
2013
Wilko, Q.
Hart, G., & Dolbear, C.
2013
Heath, T., Hausenblas, M.,
Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R., & 2008
Hartig, O.
Jentzsch, A.
2011
W3C
2013
Folmer, E.
2013
Farazi, F. et al.
2012
Lopez-Pellicer, F.J., Florczyk,
A.J., Nogueras-Iso, J., Muro2011
Medrano, P.R. & ZarazagaSoria, F.J.
Schade, S. & Lutz, M.
Tschirner, S., Scherp, A. &
Staab, S.
Vanbockryck,
J.
&
Robbrecht, J.
Beckers, V. & Tirry, D.
De Keyzer, M., Loutas, N.,
Colas, C. & Goedertier, S.
De Keyzer, M., Loutas, N. &
Goedertier, S.
Loutas, N., De Keyzer, M. &
Goedertier, S.
2010
2011
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
van den Brink, L., Janssen,
2013
P., Quak, W.
Click to edit Master title style
Title
Type
Pilot Linked Open Data Nederland (NL)
B
Linked Data: a Geographic Perspective
How to Publish Linked Data on the Web
B
W
Description
Source: http://www.pilod.nl/doc/boek2.pdf
Source: Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group
Source: http://events.linkeddata.org/iswc2008tutorial/
LOD Cloud Diagram as of September 2011
W
Linking Open Data - W3C SWEO Community Project.
W
Introductie tweede Linked Open Data Pilot
PPT
Trentino government linked open geodata: first
results
PPT
Linked Open Data for INSPIRE: From 3 to 5 star
geospatial data
PPT
Opportunities and Challenges for using Linked Data in
INSPIRE
Semantic access to INSPIRE: How to publish and query
advanced GML data
Start to Link, a practical POI approach
P
PPT
Linked Open Data: Pilot Project of NGI-Belgium
TM1.2. Introduction to Linked Data (en)
R
PPT
TM1.3. Introduction to RDF & SPARQL (en)
PPT
TM2.3. Design & Manage Persistent URIs (en)
PPT
From geodata to linked data:
Transformation from GML to RDF
BC
Automated
P
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LOD_Cloud_Diagram_as_of_September_2011.png
Source:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData
Source:
http://www.geonovum.nl/sites/default/files/Presentatie%200%20ErwinFolmerv4.pdf
Source:
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2012/presentations/14.p
df
Source:
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2011/presentations/170.
pdf
Source: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/15247
Source: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-798/paper7.pdf
Source:
http://www.poweredbyinspire.eu/documents/0503-linkeddatarobbrecht.pdf
Source: currently internal (report waiting for approval)
Source: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/ods/document/tm12-introductionlinked-data-en
Source: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/ods/document/tm13-introductionrdf-sparql-en
Source:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/ods/document/tm23-designmanage-persistent-uris-en
Source:
http://www.pilod.nl/wiki/Boek/BrinkEtAl-GML2RDF
9
Literature study results
Author(s)
Type
Description
R
Source: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/semic/document/cookbooktranslating-data-models-rdf-schemas
2013
2013
Deliverable 2.2.1 Integration of External Geospatial
Databases
R
Athanasiou, S. et al.
2013
Deliverable 2.3.1 Prototype of built in Geospatial
Capabilities
R
Williams, H. et al.
Ngonga, A., Sherif, M. &
Hassan, M.
Deliverable 3.1.1 Development of First Prototype
for Spatially Interlinking Data Sets
R
2013
Wauer, M., Both, A.,
Stadtler, C. & Isele, R.
R
2013
Deliverable 6.1.2 Report on Customer Data
Preparation
Source:
http://svn.aksw.org/projects/GeoKnow/Public/D6.1.2_Customer_data_prepa
ration.pdf
GeoKnow
2013
Source: http://geoknow.eu/t2-7.html
OGC
2012
R
S
Abbas, S. & Ojo, A.
2013
P
Source: EGOVIS/EDEM 2013: 196-210. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-401602_16
Kerry Taylor, K., Lefort, L.,
Squire, G., Walker, G.,
Woolf, A., Shu, Y.,
Ratcliffe, D., Cox, S.,
Haller, A.
Tsinaraki,
C.,
Stavrakantonakis, I. &
Christodoulakis, S.
Date
2013
Title
Click to edit Master title style
Cookbook for translating Data Models to RDF
Schemas
Core Location Pilot - Interconnecting Belgian
Address Data
Archer, P., Loutas, N. &
Goedertier, S.
Colas, C., Goedertier, S.,
Kourtidis, S, Loutas, N. &
Rubino, F.
and Transformation for Linked Data Usage
Task 2.7: Exposing INSPIRE data as Linked Data.
GeoSPARQL - A Geographic Query Language for RDF
Data
Towards a Linked Geospatial Data Infrastructure.
Developing Ontologies for Linked Geospatial Data
R
Source:
http://svn.aksw.org/projects/GeoKnow/Public/D2.2.1_Integration_of_Geospa
tial_Databases.pdf
Source:
http://svn.aksw.org/projects/GeoKnow/Public/D2.3.1_Prototype_of_Builtin_Geospatial_Capabilities.pdf
Source:
http://svn.aksw.org/projects/GeoKnow/Public/D3.1.1.Development_of_First_
Prototype_for_Spatially.pdf
Source: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/geosparql
P
2014
2007
Source:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/core_location/document/corelocation-pilot-interconnecting-belgian-address-data
http://www.w3.org/2014/03/lgd/papers/lgd14_submission_41.pdf
XS2OWL: Representation of XML Schemas in OWL
syntax
W
http://www.music.tuc.gr/projects/sw/xs2owl/
10
Literature study results
INSPIRE community
•
•
•
•
•
Click
to edit Master title style
Linked Data community
Tschirner, S., Scherp, A. & Staab, S. Semantic access to INSPIRE: How to
publish and query advanced GML data
van den Brink, L., Janssen, P. & Quak,
W. - Linking spatial data: automated
conversion of geo-information models
and GML data to RDF
Hobona, G., Brackin, R. – OGC OWS-8
Cross Community Interoperability (CCI)
Semantic Mediation Engineering Report
ISO/TC 211 – DIS-19150-2 - Ontology Part 2: Rules for developing ontologies
in the Web Ontology Language (OWL)
GeoKnow - Task 2.7: Exposing INSPIRE
data as Linked Data (and related work)
•
•
•
•
•
Archer, P., Loutas, N. & Goedertier, S.
Cookbook for translating Data Models to
RDF Schemas
Colas, C., Goedertier, S., Kourtidis, S,
Loutas, N. & Rubino, F. - Core Location
Pilot - Interconnecting Belgian Address
Data
Hyland, B., Atemezing, G. & VillazónTerrazas, B. - Best Practices for Publishing
Linked Data
ISA Programme – Action 1.1 - Deliverable
3.1 - Process and Methodology for
Developing Core Vocabularies
…
11
Literature
If there is anything relevant missing from our list, please contact us:
are3na@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Click to edit Master title
style
The list will be provided together with this current presentation.
12
Literature study results
Example of project on transformation:
Geonovum
& TU Delft
Click to
edit Master
title style
(Linda van den Brink, Paul Janssen & Wilko Quak)
1. Transforming GML into RDFS/OWL (automated using XSLT)
2. Transforming UML into RDFS/OWL (annotating the UML model)
Motivation for the work
• Currently service based dissemination of GML structured data
• Semantics for predefined domains and clear use cases, controllable
• Not flexible in view of new/revised concepts and relations
• Transformation needed from local sources to INSPIRE data specs
• The use of RDF and GeoSPARQL might be complementary
• RDF transformation can/should be standardized
13
Literature study results
UML data
model
(semantics)
Issues/challenges for the
GML to edit Master title style
Click
mapping as defined in ISO
Application
Schema
ISO 19150
•
•
RDFS/OWL
(ontologies)
RDF
•
Closed world of UML versus
open world of OWL
Connection of concepts in
UML and related concepts in
vocabularies
Modeling conventions and
restrictions in UML
Questions tackled in the research and experiments
•
•
•
Is it possible to describe a generic transformation from GML to RDF without knowledge
about the underlying model?
How should geometry be encoded in RDF?
How to transform (automatically) the UML model into RDFS/OWL and can it be
integrated with other ontologies on the web
14
Literature study results
The experiment - IMRO
Click to edit Master title style
• Transformation of GML data to RDFS/OWL (automatically) using GML2RDF
• Elements such as names and descriptions are mapped
• Objects, also nested features, data types and properties are mapped
• Point and surface features transformed to a WKT serialization
• Transformation of UML to RDFS/OWL (semi-automatically) using ShapeChange
• Tackle UML anomalies
Other
• Open-world oriented ontology
Registries
• Modifications ShapeChange
code lists
• Open issues
services
Application schema
• Attributes
• Classes
metadata
• Generation of an OWL vocabulary from GML application schema and UML model
• Improved mapping from UML to OWL by adding information (annotation)
Geonovum Experiments
15
Agenda
Click to edit Master title style
1
Introduction
2
Context
3
Literature study results
4
Sharing your experience – Issues/Challenges?
5
Next steps - Experiments
16
Sharing your experience – Issues/Challenges?
Sharing your experience
Issues/Challenges?
12/12
• From the literature review (so far)
andto
from
theMaster
discussions
in the
Click
edit
title
style
London workshop several issues can be raised ...
1.
It seems that there are too many semantics in UML stereotypes that
are not amenable to a generic UML to OWL toolset (Taylor)
•
•

2.
Potentially loss of much of the intrinsic OWL capabilities
Hampering the interoperability with other RDF datasets
For the transformation of domain models, start over again from scratch for
developing an OWL model?
Rules for generation of OWL and the work in ISO/TC 211
•
•
•

Rule-based conversion without harmonization with existing ontologies
Relating it to other OWL ontologies can be done by using RDFS/OWL
mechanisms
Other set of rules exist (e.g. in ShapeChange)
Do we need to go for a flat rule-based conversion or not?
18
Sharing your experience
Issues/Challenges?
12/12
• From the literature review (so far)
andto
from
theMaster
discussions
in the
Click
edit
title
style
London workshop several issues can be raised ...
3.
Standards for geometry in RDF
•
Which standards to use? Debate during the London workshop: GeoSPARQL
•
•
In the Dutch experiments GeoSPARQL was used with the WKT serialization
•
•
4.
Which alternative? Revise GeoSPARQL ?
Only Simple Feature Geometry and because WKT is compact
Many vocabularies and extensions exist
Other issues ?
What are the key public service and policy areas
where INSPIRE-related RDF can be (re)-used
in e-government?
LinkedGeoData
Basic Geo
GeoRSS
GeoOWL
GeoSPARQL
Core Location
NeoGeo
...
19
Agenda
Click to edit Master title style
1
Introduction
2
Context
3
Literature study results
4
Sharing your experience – Issues/Challenges?
5
Next steps - Experiments
20
Next steps - Experiments
Next steps - Experiments
12/12
In order to have a common methodology
theMaster
experiments
Click to for
edit
titlesome
style
questions have to be answered
A first series of questions / ideas based on the elements of Generic Conceptual Model
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
How do you transform the general Feature model? What are the rules used for
transforming spatial object types, attributes (spatial, temporal, locational,
metadata, thematic), associations, constraints?
Which related concepts from existing ontologies can be re-used?
Are there any domain independent core vocabularies such as NASA’s sweet
ontology, UCUM that could be used for units, dimensions…
Which data types will be used for common data types (dates, integers, strings,
etc…)
How can target classes be identified in UML?
How closed or open should the final OWL model be?
22
Next steps - Experiments
12/12
In order to have a common methodology
theMaster
experiments
Click to for
edit
titlesome
style
questions have to be answered
A first series of questions / ideas based on the elements of Generic Conceptual Model
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
How to include links to application schema’s, INSPIRE feature concept dictionary,
themes, code lists in the OWL schema?
How to encode geometry? How to encode raster data?
Should a distinction be made between enumerations and code lists? Is there a
need to distinguish between different types of code lists (extensible vs nonextensible)
How to deal with versioning and lifecycle information in OWL?
How to deal with the concept of voidability?
How to identify CRS? (now it is part of the geometry literal in GeoSPARQL)
How to identify temporal reference systems?
…
23
Literature
If there is anything relevant missing from our first list of issues/questions to be
tackled please say so
Click to edit Master title style
What are the priorities?
contact us: are3na@jrc.ec.europa.eu
24
Next steps
Click to edit Master title style
1. Highlights
Follow us on Joinup. We will provide the highlights of this
webinar
2. Refinement
WEBINAR II: Guidelines & methodologies 5 & 6 May 2014
AND….
At any time, your feedback is very appreciated.
25
Next steps
Click to edit Master title style
Thank you for your participation!
Join the collaborative platforms in
other areas of Open Source &
Semantic Interoperability on
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/
Connecting Geospatial Data
26