Abstract
In last decades a key problem in adopting technologies in planning process was a chronic lack of data. But in recent times, such problem was inverted due to the overabundance of data produced in different periods, with various purposes, at multiple scales and with different cognitive models. This situation generated three types of barriers to data interoperability: bureaucratic, technological, semantic. While the first two issues have been solved taking various initiatives, the last one could be solved using ontologies. Concepts are the cornerstone of the ontology, but it is not easy to define a concept without any ambiguity, discordance or vagueness. A concept can be clear or not; ambiguity occurs when a concept is not much clear; while discordance arises when an agreement is missing. If the concept definition can present some incoherence, the broad boundaries model can be useful in Ontology representation. This model is an extension of the 9-intersection model used for the topological relationship among geographical objects. The model with broad boundaries deals with uncertainty in spatial data taking into account ill defined aspects. This model is based on the definitions of inner and broad boundaries. Using this model in Ontology field, the inner boundary is the edge of the part of a concept without doubts and the broad boundary is the grey zone, with a certain level of uncertainty, useful to represent ambiguity, discordance and vagueness. Topology rules represent the relationship among concepts. If two concepts are identical, the “equal” rule can be used; if they share some parts, the “overlap” rule is suitable. If two concepts are completely different, the “disjoint” rule can be applied. If a concept is a subset of another, there are several rules which can help us (“covers”, “covered by”, “contains” and “inside”). In case all concepts are clear, these relationships can be modelled using the 9-intersection model. The way to define the part of concept included inside the inner boundary and the other one included in the broad boundary can be achieved using rough set theory. All the aspects of a concept classified in the same way represent the indiscernible part of the concept and are included inside lower approximation (inner boundary). The remaining part represents an uncertainty zone and it falls within the upper approximation (outer boundary). The measure of the degree of uncertainty inside the upper approximation can be modelled using fuzzy set theory. This approach has been tested with several concepts particularly suitable to verify the hypothesis.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Laurini, R., Murgante, B.: Interoperabilità semantica e geometrica nelle basi di dati geografiche nella pianificazione urbana. In: Murgante, B. (ed.) L’informazione geografica a supporto della pianificazione territoriale, FrancoAngeli, Milano (2008)
Goodchild, M.F.: Citizens as Voluntary Sensors: Spatial Data Infrastructure in the World of Web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 2, 24–32 (2007)
Goodchild, M.F.: NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of Location Based Services 3, 82–96 (2009)
Turner, A.: Introduction to Neogeography. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2006)
Couclelis, H.: Ontologies of geographic information. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(12), 1785–1809 (2010)
Ferraris, M.: Dove sei? Ontologia del telefonino, Bompiani editore, Milano (2005)
Neches, R., Fikes, R.E., Finin, T., Gruber, T.R., Senator, T., Swartout, W.R.: Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine 12 (1991)
Murgante, B.: L’informatica, i Sistemi Informativi Geografici e la Pianificazione del Territorio. In: Murgante, B. (a cura di) L’informazione geografica a supporto della pianificazione territoriale, FrancoAngeli, Milano (2008)
Chandrasekaran, B., Johnson, T.R., Benjamins, V.R.: Ontologies: what are they? why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 14(1) (1999)
Fonseca, F., Egenhofer, M., Davis, C., Câmara, G.: Semantic Granularity in Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 36 (2002)
Murgante, B., Scardaccione, G., Las Casas, G.: Building ontologies for disaster management: seismic risk domain. In: Krek, A., Rumor, M., Zlatanova, S., Fendel, E.M. (eds.) Urban and Regional Data Management, pp. 259–269. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, London (2009)
Las Casas, G., Murgante, B.: Il Documento preliminare al Piano strutturale della Provincia di Potenza: i termini di un approccio strategico Archivio di studi urbani e regionali, A. XXXVII, N. 85-86, pp. 199–211, edizioni FrancoAngeli, Milano (2006)
Indovina, F., Fregolent, L.: Un futuro amico. Sostenibilità ed equità, FrancoAngeli, Milano (2002)
Murgante, B., Tilio, L., Lanza, V., Scorza, F.: Using participative GIS and e-tools for involving citizens of Marmo Platano – Melandro area in European programming activities” special issue on “E-Participation in Southern Europe and the Balkans”. Journal of Balkans and Near Eastern Studies 13(1), 97–115 (2011), doi:10.1080/19448953.2011.550809
Healey, P.: Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review 63, 142–162 (1992)
Krek, A.: Rational Ignorance of the Citizens in Public Participatory Planning. In: Proceedings of the CORP 2005 & Geomultimedia Conference, Vienna (April 2005)
Noveck, B.S.: Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution Press, Washington (2009)
Salvini, A.: L’Analisi delle Reti Sociali. Risorse e Meccanismi. Edizioni PLUS Pisa University Press (2005)
Vander Wal T.: Folksonomy Coinage and Definition (2006), http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html (last access 12/12/09)
Kitsuregawa, M., Matsuoka, S., Matsuyama, T., Sudoh, O., Adachi, J.: Cyber Infrastructure for the Information-Explosion Era. Journal of Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence 22(2), 209–214 (2007)
Greenfeld, A., Shepard, M.: Urban Computing and Its Discontents, The Architectural League of New York (2007)
Couclelis, H.: Ontologies of geographic information. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(12), 1785–1809 (2010)
Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. International Journal of Information & Computer Sciences 11, 341–356 (1982)
Zadeh, L.: Fuzzy sets. Information Control 8, 338–353 (1965)
Egenhofer, M.J., Herring, J.: Categorizing binary topological relationships be-tween regions, lines, and points in geographic databases. Technical Report, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of Maine, Orono (1991)
Clementini, E., Di Felice, P.: A spatial model for complex objects with a broad boundary supporting queries on uncertain data. Data & Knowledge Engineering 37(3), 285–305 (2001)
Di Donato, P., Berardi, L., Salvemini, M., Vico, F., Murgante, B.: Plan4all: European Network of Best Practices for Interoperability of Spatial Planning Information. In: Las Casas, G., Pontrandolfi, P., Murgante, B. (eds.) Informatica e Pianificazione Urbana e Territoriale, Libria Melfi (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Murgante, B., Scorza, F. (2011). Ontology and Spatial Planning. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds) Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2011. ICCSA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6783. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21887-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21887-3_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21886-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21887-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)