| 000 | 02439nam a22002417a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | ZW-GwMSU | ||
| 005 | 20221128114840.0 | ||
| 008 | 221128b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aMSU _cMSU _erda |
||
| 100 | 1 |
_aAl-Bakri, Maythm _eauthor |
|
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aAssessing similarity matching for possible integration of feature classifications of geospatial data from official and informal sources _ccreated by Maythm Al-Bakri and David Fairbairn |
| 264 |
_aNewcastle : _bTaylor & Francis, _c2012. |
||
| 336 |
_2rdacontent _atext _btxt |
||
| 337 |
_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn |
||
| 338 |
_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc |
||
| 440 | _vVolume , number , | ||
| 520 | _aOne difficulty in integrating geospatial data sets from different sources is variation in feature classification and semantic content of the data. One step towards achieving beneficial semantic interoperability is to assess the semantic similarity among objects that are categorised within data sets. This article focuses on measuring semantic and structural similarities between categories of formal data, such as Ordnance Survey (OS) cartographic data, and volunteered geographic information (VGI), such as that sourced from OpenStreetMap (OSM), with the intention of assessing possible integration. The model involves ‘tokenisation’ to search for common roots of words, and the feature classifications have been modelled as an XML schema labelled rooted tree for hierarchical analysis. The semantic similarity was measured using the WordNet::Similarity package, while the structural similarities between sub-trees of the source and target schemas have also been considered. Along with dictionary and structural matching, the data type of the category itself is a comparison variable. The overall similarity is based on a weighted combination of these three measures. The results reveal that the use of a generic similarity matching system leads to poor agreement between the semantics of OS and OSM data sets. It is concluded that a more rigorous peer-to-peer assessment of VGI data, increasing numbers and transparency of contributors, the initiation of more programs of quality testing and the development of more directed ontologies can improve spatial data integration. | ||
| 650 | _aspatial data integration | ||
| 650 | _asemantic similarity | ||
| 650 | _astructural similarity | ||
| 856 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.636012 | ||
| 942 |
_2lcc _cJA |
||
| 999 |
_c160627 _d160627 |
||