Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Case studies from other disciplines
- Part II Modeling software and community codes
- Part III Visualization and data representation
- Part IV Knowledge management and data integration
- 10 Data and tools for geologic timelines and timescales
- 11 Modeling geodynamic processes with ontologies
- Part V Web services and scientific workflows
- Part VI Emerging international and other efforts
- Index
- Plate section
- References
11 - Modeling geodynamic processes with ontologies
from Part IV - Knowledge management and data integration
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Case studies from other disciplines
- Part II Modeling software and community codes
- Part III Visualization and data representation
- Part IV Knowledge management and data integration
- 10 Data and tools for geologic timelines and timescales
- 11 Modeling geodynamic processes with ontologies
- Part V Web services and scientific workflows
- Part VI Emerging international and other efforts
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Introduction
Ontologies define the hierarchical structure and types of object and process entities and their properties, and reflect the nature of the spatial objects and regions involved in processes, relations among processes and spatial entities, and the temporal characteristics of the processes (e.g., Noy, 2004; Smith, 2003). Earth scientists study naturally, experimentally, or simulationally induced processes, and develop conceptual models to help them understand and simulate these processes in the laboratory. The metadata, i.e., information required to understand data, inherent in ontologies, can help the integration, reuse, and interoperability of these models, and enhancement of their functionality.
Despite the fact that object, state, process, and event constitute the main ingredients of an ontology (Galton and Worboys, 2005), most ontologies in the earth sciences only focus on the static part of reality, i.e., on objects (e.g., fault, subduction zone) and their properties and relations, leaving the processes (e.g., faulting, subduction), which constitute the dynamic part of reality, out of the picture. In other words, these ontologies ignore change through time and the processes that materialize these changes, despite the fact that earth scientists continuously collect data about individual spatial objects and processes in their research. With the advent of the Web and sophisticated digital data acquisition equipments, which produce an immense volume of data in short periods of time, and cover spatial regions of variable scale, there is an emerging and urgent need for data and information storage and interchange through ontology-based knowledge bases.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- GeoinformaticsCyberinfrastructure for the Solid Earth Sciences, pp. 166 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
(1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM, 26: 832–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23: 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005a). Modeling geological objects with the XML Schema. In Applications of XML in Geosciences, ed. and . Computers & Geosciences, Special Issue, 31: 1135–1150.
and (2005b). Developing the earthquake markup language and database with UML and XML Schema. In Applications of XML in Geosciences, ed. and . Computers & Geosciences, Special Issue, 31: 1175–1200.
, , and (2004). Endurants and perdurants in directly depicting ontologies. AI Communications, 17(4), Special Issue on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
(1977). Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 3: Ontology I. The Furniture of the World. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 352pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 238pp.Google Scholar
, , and (2004). Modeling Surface Hydrology Concepts with Endurance and Perdurance. LNCS 3234. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
and (2005). Processes and events in dynamic geospatial networks. In Proceedings of First International Conference on Geospatial Semantics, ed. , , and . LNCS 3799, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. LNCS 2473. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 223–233.Google Scholar
(2003a). Spatiotemporality in basic formal ontology: SNAP and SPAN, upper-level ontology, and framework for formalization. IFOMIS Technical Report 05, 89pp.
(2003b). The formal ontology of spatio-temporal reality and its formalization. In Foundations and Applications of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning (FASTR), ed. , and . AAAI Spring Symposium Technical Report Series. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
(2003c). Spatio-temporality in basic formal ontology: SNAP and SPAN, upper-level ontology, and framework for formalization. IFOMIS Technical Reports Series 05/03.
and (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1): 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004). Biodynamic ontology: Applying BFO in biomedical domain. In Ontologies in Medicine, ed. . Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 20–38.Google Scholar
and (2002). Identity and Subsumption. In The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. , and . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Ontological categories in GOL. In Process Theories: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Dynamic Categories, ed. . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Space, Time, and Einstein: An Introduction. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 192pp.Google Scholar
(1961). Objects, events, and complementarity. The Philosophical Review, 70(3): 340–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). A formal foundation for process modeling. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 256–269.Google Scholar
(2005). The metaphysical equivalence of three and four dimensionalism. Erkenntnis, 62: 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Continuants and processes in macroscopic chemistry. In Process Theories: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Dynamic Categories, ed. . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Record, Special Issue on Semantic Integration, 33(4): 65–70. Available at: www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0412/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Meronomic relationships: From classical mereology to complex part-whole relations. In The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed., and . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). In Applications of XML in Geosciences, ed. and . Computers & Geosciences, 31: 1119–1125.
(2001). Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Ontology. In Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, ed. . Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 155–166.Google Scholar
(2004). Beyond Concepts: Ontology as reality representation. In Formal Ontology and Information Systems 2004. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
and (2004). The cornucopia of formal-ontological relations. Dialectica, 58(3): 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). The role of foundational relations in the alignment of biomedical ontologies. In Proceedings MEDINFO 2004, ed. et al. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 444–448.Google Scholar
and (2000). Fiat and bona fide boundaries. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LX, 2: 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2005). Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology, 6, R46. Open Access.Google ScholarPubMed
and (2004). A four-dimentionalist mereotopology. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems, ed. and . Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar
and (2006). NanTroSEIZE: The IODP Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment. Scientific Drilling, 2: 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 39: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.