0 © 2006 humboldt consortium fraunhoferstraße 5 64283 darmstadt overview humboldt: a gmes and...

© 2006 Humboldt Consortium Fraunhoferstraße 5 64283 Darmstadt http://www.esdi-humboldt.org

1

Overview

• Humboldt: a GMES and INSPIRE project

• Data harmonisation (WP7)

• Suggestions?


2

HUMBOLDT – Integrate knowledge

• A FP6 EU project

• GMES and INSPIRE

• An INSPIRE test case

• Project Title

Development of a framework for Data

Harmonisation and Service Integration


3

Spatial Information Infrastructure(s)

BusinessessConsumers

s

Governments

Users

Information

DemographicsHealth Transportation

Crime

Real Estate

……infrastructures rely on a variety of technology infrastructures rely on a variety of technology “standards” and network connections.“standards” and network connections.

Network Connections

Finance

Environment

ShoppingPolitics

Leasure

Economic

Defense

PublicSafety

Internet, World Wide Web, and other standards

Source: Reed 2002


4

HUMBOLDT – Integrate knowledge

• A FP6 EU project

• GMES and INSPIRE

• An INSPIRE test case

• Project Title

Development of a framework for Data

Harmonisation and Service Integration


5

Two kinds of end products

• The Humboldt Framework

An open source software components toolkit to build an SDI

Can be Web services, local components

The ‘glue’ to connect, configure and administer these components

Tutorials, best practives

• Data models for a number of application domains (the scenarios)

The common models (in UML, in GML/XML schemas, in thesauri, in metadata registries)

A data harmonisation module in the Framework (run time)

Guidelines, tools (design time)


6

HUMBOLDT - Leitmotif

• Project philosophy

Re-use existing –

Extend by need –

Arrive at the ESDI –

Prosper by application


7Geo-services

Topo= Map Server

Clients

BaseMap = Map Server

ImageryImagery= Map= MapServerServer

Raster= Map Server

Network = Map Server

Distributed Mapping or geo-enabled services to present and analyze information from “Geo-Servers” using different vendors technology and rendering methods

RDBMS / AEC / CAD / GIS = Feature Servers Stored data ‘Export’ Rendering

From servers to clients


8

Integrate, re-use, share

HUMBOLDT framework Development

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 1

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 2

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 3

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 4

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 5

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 6

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 7

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

- 8

HU

MB

OLD

T S

cenario

-9+

+

Rela

ted S

cenario

s

Use

r N

eed

s

Data

S

ets

GM

ES

Pro

j.

…


9

Scenario applications

• 1. Border Security (cross-border)

• 2. Urban Planning

• 3. Forest (cross-border, number of central European countries)

• 4. Protected Areas (follow-up of Nature-GIS)

• 5. European Risk Atlas (cross-border natural disaster information)

• 6. Water (extension of SDIGER project)

• 7. Ocean (oil pollution, integration of ocean and land data)

• 8. Galileo (atmospheric information, mobile devices, sensors)


10

Our (=TUD) role in the project

• Lead of WP 7: data harmonisation

• We are also part of other work packages:

WP 3: state of the art

WP 4: software development methodology

WP 5: design phase of the Framework

WP 9: scenarios

WP 11 and 12: dissemination and training

plus small role in WP 10 and 2


11

Information flow between WPs


WP 7 Data harmonisation (TU Delft WP Lead)


13

ETRA Spain

HSRS Czech Republic

INGR Czech Republic Profile for security

TUD Netherlands WP Lead, Concept of application-specific data

models

ULSoR Italy

FOMI Hungary

MARIS Netherlands Profile for ocean and marine environment

RT-GIS Germany Profile for risk management

IFREMER France

NERC/BODC United Kingdom

HCMR Greece

SMHI Sweden Profile for atmosphere

TPZ Italy

CNR-IREA Italy

FMI Czech Republic Profile for Land cover and vegetation

IGP Portugal

CLS France


14

Role of WP7

•2.4.3. Providing Common Spatial Data Models …


15

2.4.3. Providing Common Spatial Data Models …

•Conceptual = implementation-neutral

•Vector data and raster data

•Data content: geographic and ‘thematic’ attributes

•Also the metadata (fuzzy boundary between data and metadata)

•Also look at classification schemas, visualization part

(cartographic consistency)

•Common models = find the optimal level of harmonisation


16

What belongs to the common model, what is an organisation-specific extension?


17

Also cross-border cartography


18

Cross border: missing info / gaps


19

Same area: conflation

Inconsistencies between datasets: which one is the ‘best’ representation

(c.f. Uitermark research)


20

3102 Weg

Befestigter oder unbefestigter Geländestreifen, der zum Befahrenund/oder Begehen vorgesehen ist.

Paved or unpaved stretch of landscape that is suited for driving vehicles or walking.

Roads suitable for vehicle that are not open to the general public e.g. forest roads, agricultural roads

Road

A way maintained for vehicular use.

Roads for bicycleand tractor might be included

Footpath,Cart track,Bridle path etc.

EuroRoadS

3101 StrasseBefestigter, dem allgemeinen Verkehr dienender Verkehrsweg

all-weather (paved) way that can be used by the general public

ATKIS (Germany)

Data Content Definition (Semantics)


21

3102 Weg

Befestigter oder unbefestigter Geländestreifen, der zum Befahrenund/oder Begehen vorgesehen ist.

Paved or unpaved stretch of landscape that is suited for driving vehicles or walking.

Roads suitable for vehicle that are not open to the general public e.g. forest roads, agricultural roads

Road

A way maintained for vehicular use.

Roads for bicycleand tractor might be included

Footpath,Cart track,etc.

3101 StrasseBefestigter, dem allgemeinen Verkehr dienender Verkehrsweg

all-weather (paved) way that can be used by the general public

Data Content Definition (Semantics)

Common model: Data Dictionary

Language: natural language, multilingual, Ontologies

EuroRoadS ATKIS (Germany)


22

The “core” model: a link between sectors

RoadsWater

Core


23

Water Roads

Themes and sectors overlap

Transport

Environment

Core


24

Water Roads

As sectoral interoperability develops, the common core grows …

Transport

Environment

CoreCore


25

Water Roads

Common and other Reference Data

Transport

Environment

CoreCoreCore

CommonReference

Data


26

Role of WP7


•2.4.3. …. and Allowing an Efficient Transition to Harmonised

Data (WP5/WP7)


27

2.4.3. …. and Allowing an Efficient Transition to Harmonised Data (WP5/WP7)• ESDI: transition to common / “shared” data models

• Without data loss

• With minimum costs

• Humboldt objective: provide tools and best practices

Procedures / workflow how to create common models and organization-specific

extensions

Software components for mapping of legacy data models to the harmonised data model

…


28

“Mapping” between data models: role of ontology tools and languages


29One method: ‘create view’ (SQL)

CREATE VIEW CultHistObject ASSELECT concat('archis.',id#) AS fid, decode(WAARDE, 'archeologische betekenis', 'not assessed' ... 'hoge archeologische waarde', 'high' 'zeer hoge archeologische waarde', 'very high' 'zeer hoge archeologische waarde, beschermd', 'very high' 'unknown') AS cultHistValue, decode(WAARDE, 'archeologische betekenis', 'not assessed yet' 'zeer hoge archeologische waarde, beschermd', 'monument' 'none') AS juridStatus, to_char(null) AS partOfCultHistObj#, ...FROM archisUNIONSELECT concat('monreg.',id#) AS fid, to_char(null) AS cultHistValue, 'national monument' AS juridStatus, concat('monreg.',Complex-id#) AS partOfCultHistObj#, ...FROM monregUNION ...


30

Another language: OWL<owl:Class rdf:about="MO_SUBJECT_MF"> <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="ccdm.owl#NaturalPerson"/></owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="MO_SUBJECT_MF"> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#MO_SUBJECT"/> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#MO_SUBJECT_NAT_PERS_CODE"/> </owl:onProperty> <owl:allValuesFrom> <owl:Class> <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#M"/> <owl:Class rdf:about="#V"/> </owl:unionOf> ...


31

Tools, techniques, standards, …

• Tools, software components

Creation + maintenance of data models and relations between data models

• Languages to describe data models

UML (and OCL)

OWL (Web Ontology Language)

XML Schema (already towards physical implementation)

• Feature catalogues, metadata

ISO 19110 (Methodology for feature cataloguing)

ISO 19115 (Metadata)

ISO 19139 (Geographic Metadata Implementation Model)


32

Role of WP7



Data (WP5/WP7)

•2.4.8. Crossing technical, administrative, cultural and other

borders (WP7/WP11)


33

Role of WP7



Data (WP5/WP7)

•2.4.8. Crossing technical, administrative, cultural and other

borders (WP7/WP11)

•2.4.4. Maximizing Spatial Data Usefulness (WP5/WP8)


34

2.4.4. Maximizing Spatial Data Usefulness (WP5/WP8)•Re-use of geo-information outside original context

•Efficient in terms of data collection

•Also effective in terms of user needs?

•How to clarify meaning of geo-information to outsiders

•Necessary: rich metadata, explicit semantics, intelligent search

engines

•-> fitness for use assessment by end-users in other contexts


35

WP7: input for WP9 Scenarios

•Application-specific data models (scenario profiles)

•Tools for “mapping” from source model to target model

From existing data sets to application-specific profile

Between application-specific profiles (re-use in another application domain)

•Best practices, techniques

•Test data (harmonized and not yet harmonized)

•Multilingual aspect

Which WP9 scenarios as test case?


36

.. and input from WP9 Scenarios

• Implementability of application-specific profiles

• Experiences in scenarios may result in

Adaptation of profiles

Other harmonisation strategies

• Flexibility, maintainabiltiy of the profiles

• EASY TRANSITION, USABLE ??

• (remember the motto yesterday): the day-to-day work of end-users is

central focal point


37

Scenario applications

• 1. Border Security (cross-border)

• 2. Urban Planning

• 3. Forest (cross-border, number of central European countries)

• 4. Protected Areas (follow-up of Nature-GIS)

• 5. European Risk Atlas (cross-border natural disaster information)

• 6. Water (extension of SDIGER project)

• 7. Ocean (oil pollution, integration of ocean and land data)

• 8. Galileo (atmospheric information, mobile devices, sensors)


38

Data (model) harmonisation

•Several approaches to data integration and model harmonisation

•Harmonised core data models with organisation-specific

extensions

•… semantic translation between models

•… peer-to-peer data integration (c.f. OpenKnowledge EU project)

•… with mediator software, e.g. ontology reasoners?


39

How to implement harmonized, common models?•Again different approaches

•Adaptation of the actual data storage, OR

•On-the-fly, virtual integration:

by mediator software in the middle layer?

by database views?

in an intelligent client?

•Different requirements -> different architectures


40

Requirements -> technologyType of use Quality of result Mapping to

common model

How and where

Exploratory,

ad hoc

Best guess, fuzzy - -

Projects or

structural

cooperation

Medium or high On-the-fly, during

data retrieval and

use

By application

software (selection

filters, mediators,

ontology reasoners)

Time-critical

applications

High Pre-defined At data source (views

on tables, automated

replication)


41

Query translation (via core model)


42

Multi-source ‘fusion’ -> integrated view Integrated View

Data -> Maps

Topography

Transport

Elevation

Hydro

Soils, Vegetation

Weather

RiversRoadsImagesSoils, Vegetation ...

CatalogView

Framework(Clearinghouse)


43

What can go wrong• General

Scale: high precision combined with low precision

Dimension: when 3D models are ‘flattened’ to 2D

Time: versions, up-to-dateness, different moments in time


44

What can go wrong #2• Cross-border

Projection, coordinate system

Cartographic symbols and classification

• Cross-domain/sector

Semantic ambiguity, unclear content, different definitions

Re-use of data for another purpose (for what it was not intended)


45

Data integration on-the-fly: what can go wrong?• Combining ‘live’ (sensor) data with existing ‘static’ data:

GPS positional accuracy (when tracking persons, vehicles, other moving objects)

Inconsistent data formats, projection systems

• General:

Performance: too slow?

System robustness + security


46

Interoperability issues

• Combination of software components of many vendors

• No monopoly of one AEC or GIS or CAD or geo-database product, but …

• Combine the best products (for editing, for viewing, for analysis, for

management and storage)

• Government agencies (in Europe) ask for ‘open’ standards (‘open’ = not

vendor specific)


47

Needed for re-use and sharing of data• Catalog = to know what data is available

• Intermediary data transfer formats

• Standardization of interfaces between distributed software components =

(Web) services

• Common information models

• Agreement on access policy (including security, authorization, privacy)


48

Towards an (E)SDI

• Discover what usefull spatial data is available

• Agree on access policy and security between organizations

• Create system architecture for accessing this distributed data

• Combine with ‘live’ data from the field

• Test functionality, adapt in iterations

• Keep data up-2-date, continuous process

• Extend, be flexible, …


49

Example

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Church"> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Building"/> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasFunction" /> <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Religion" /> </owl:Restriction> </owl:intersectionOf> </owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Cathedral"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Church"/> </owl:Class>


50

Example 2 <owl:Class rdf:ID="ArcheologicalMonument"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CultHistObject"/> </owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="ProtectedArcheologicalMonument"> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#ArcheologicalMonument"/> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#legalStatus"/> <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#officialMonument" /> </owl:Restriction> </owl:intersectionOf> </owl:Class>

0 © 2006 humboldt consortium fraunhoferstraße 5 64283 darmstadt overview humboldt: a gmes and...

Documents

overview humboldt

darmstadt http

scenario applications

application slide

map server network

service integration

data harmonisation module

map server imagery