skip to main content
10.1145/3291533.3291571acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A semantic data model for sensory spatio-temporal environmental concepts

Published:29 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, the well-known Resource Description Framework (RDF) forms a rather general method for web resources' conceptual description or even for generic information modeling. However, RDF's capabilities are challenged once used to effectively represent non-thematic metadata, e.g, in the form of spatial and temporal objects deriving primarily from sensor information. In addition, Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is considered today to be a widely adopted platform, related to environmental monitoring and decision making applications. Specifically, exclusive subjects, such as environmental degradation and optimized agriculture, provide a scope of applied research on the basis of multilevel semantic data analysis. Observations and sensors are the core of empirical science and their implementation (i.e., the increasing volume of data, heterogeneity of devices, data formats and measurement procedures) produce a large volume of unsupervised data. Thus, the prevailing growth of sensing systems has currently led to the development of defined interoperability among standards on web semantics. In particular, Semantic Sensor Network (SSN) ontologies prospect on modeling the capabilities and properties of sensors, monitoring procedures and observations. Furthermore, the dynamically evolving natural phenomena require proper conceptualization of environmental change and monitoring agents. Consequently, this paper describes an inaugural attempt to create a conceptual framework of spatially and temporally-enabled environmental variables for sensing systems.

References

  1. Miguel F. Acevedo. 2016. Real-Time Environmental Monitoring: Sensors and Systems. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Payam Barnaghi, Wei Wang, Lijun Dong, and Chonggang Wang. 2013. A Linked-Data Model for Semantic Sensor Streams. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications and IEEE Internet of Things and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing. 468--475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Lokesh B. Bhajantri and R. Pundalik. 2017. Data processing in semantic sensor web: A survey. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Computing and Communication Technology (iCATccT). 166--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mehul Bhatt and Jan Oliver Wallgrun. 2014. Geospatial Narratives and Their Spatio-Temporal Dynamics: Commonsense Reasoning for High Level Analyses in Geographic Information Systems. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 3 (2014), 166--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Michael Compton, Payam Barnaghi, Luis Bermudez, Raul Garcia-Castro, Oscar Corcho, Simon Cox, John Graybeal, Manfred Hauswirth, Cory Andrew Henson, Arthur Herzog, Vincent Huang, Krzysztof Janowicz, W. David Kelsey, Danh Le Phuoc, Laurent Lefort, Myriam Leggieri, Holger Neuhaus, Andriy Nikolov, Kevin Page, Alexandre Passant, Amit P. Sheth, , and Kerry Taylor. 2012. The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 17 (2012), 25 -- 32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Giuseppe D'Aniello, Matteo Gaeta, and Tzung-Pei Hong. 2018. Effective Quality-Aware Sensor Data Management. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 2 (2018), 65--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Truong Khanh Duy, Gerald Quirchmayr, Amin Tjoa, and Hoang Huu Hanh. 2017. A semantic data model for the interpretion of environmental streaming data. In 2017 Seventh International Conference on Information Science and Technology (ICIST). 376--380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Fethi Ghazouani, Wassim Messaoudi, and Imed Farah. 2016. Towards an ontological conceptualization for understanding the dynamics of spatio-temporal objects. 2nd International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Signal and Image Processing (ATSIP) (03 2016), 543--548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Benjamin Harbelot, Helbert Arenas, and Christophe Cruz. 2015. LC3: A spatio-temporal and semantic model for knowledge discovery from geospatial datasets. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 35, 1 (2015), 3--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. ChuanminHu, Broch Murch, Alina A. Corcoran, Lianyuan Zheng, Brian B. Barnes, Robert H. Weisberg, Karen Atwood, and Jason M. Lenes. 2016. Developing a Smart Semantic Web With Linked Data and Models for Near-Real-Time Monitoring of Red Tides in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. IEEE Systems Journal 10, 3 (Sept 2016), 1282--1290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alia Ibrahim, Francois Carrez, and Klaus Moessner. 2013. Spatio-Temporal Model for Role Assignment in Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 2013 19th European Wireless Conference (EW) (01 2013), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Manolis Koubarakis and Kostis Kyzirakos. 2010. Modeling and Querying Meta-data in the Semantic Sensor Web: The Model stRDF and the Query Language stSPARQL. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 425--439. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kuldeep R. Kurte, Surya S. Durbha, Roger L. King, Nicolas H. Younan, and Abhishek V. Potnis. 2017. A spatio-temporal ontological model for flood disaster monitoring. In 2017 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS). 5213--5216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kostis Kyzirakos, Manos Karpathiotakis, and Manolis Koubarakis. 2012. Strabon: A Semantic Geospatial DBMS. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Danh Le-Phuoc, Hoan Nguyen Mau Quoc, Hung Ngo Quoc, Tuan Tran Nhat, and Manfred Hauswirth. 2016. The Graph of Things: A step towards the Live Knowledge Graph of connected things. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 37--38 (2016), 25--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Vuk Mijovic, Valentina Janev, Dejan Paunovic, and Sanja Vranes. 2016. Exploratory spatio-temporal analysis of linked statistical data. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 41 (2016), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Charalampos Nikolaou, Kallirroi Dogani, Konstantina Bereta, George Garbis, Manos Karpathiotakis, Kostis Kyzirakos, and Manolis Koubarakis. 2015. Sextant: Visualizing time-evolving linked geospatial data. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 35 (2015), 35 -- 52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Azer Nouira, Lilia Cheniti-Belcadhi, and Rafik Braham. 2017. A Semantic Web Based Architecture for Assessment Analytics. In 2017 IEEE 29th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). 1190--1197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Fangling Pu, Zhili Wang, Chong Du, Wenchao Zhang, and Nengcheng Chen. 2016. Semantic integration of wireless sensor networks into open geospatial consortium sensor observation service to access and share environmental monitoring systems. IET Software 10, 2 (2016), 45--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Robert G. Raskin and Michael J. Pan. 2005. Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Computers and Geosciences 31, 9 (2005), 1119 -- 1125. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. U. H. A. Rasyid, A. Sayfudin, A. Bason, and A. Sudarsono. 2016. Development of semantic sensor web for monitoring environment conditions. In 2016 International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA). 607--612.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonas Tappolet and Abraham Bernstein. 2009. Applied Temporal RDF: Efficient Temporal Querying of RDF Data with SPARQL. Aroyo L. et al. (eds) The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. ESWC 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5554 (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yorghos Voutos, Phivos Mylonas, Evaggelos Spyrou, and Eleni Charou. 2018. An IoT-based insular monitoring architecture for smart viticulture. In 9th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    PCI '18: Proceedings of the 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics
    November 2018
    336 pages
    ISBN:9781450366106
    DOI:10.1145/3291533

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 29 November 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    PCI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate57of105submissions,54%Overall Acceptance Rate190of390submissions,49%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader