Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2024, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (5): 1211-1218.doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2024.000024
• SYSTEMS ENGINEERING • Previous Articles Next Articles
Yumin DONG1,2(), Ziyang LI1,*(), Xuesong LI1, Xiaohui LI1()
Received:
2022-11-02
Online:
2024-10-18
Published:
2024-11-06
Contact:
Ziyang LI
E-mail:dongyumin21@mails.ucas.ac.cn;zyli@aircas.ac.cn;xhli@aircas.ac.cn
About author:
Supported by:
Yumin DONG, Ziyang LI, Xuesong LI, Xiaohui LI. Using ontology and rules to retrieve the semantics of disaster remote sensing data[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2024, 35(5): 1211-1218.
Table 1
Semantic relations in the ontology of earthquake disaster chain"
Relation | Expression | Paraphrase |
Has-subclass | Has-subclass(A, B) | B is a subclass of A |
Has-related | Has-related(A, B) | A is related to B |
Induces | Induces(A, B) | A includes B |
Induces-by | Induces-by(A, B) | A is induced by B |
After | After(A, B) | A is after B |
Before | Before(A, B) | A is before B |
During | During(A, B) | A is during B |
Table 2
Data properties in the ontology of earthquake disaster chain"
Properties name | Data type | Data format |
Start-time | Xsd:datatime | YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss |
End-time | Xsd:datatime | YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss |
Center-latitude | Xsd:float | Float |
Center-longitude | Xsd:float | Float |
Magnitude | Xsd:float | Float |
Depth-of-focus | Xsd:float | Float |
Response-level | Xsd:int | Int |
Table 3
Standard reference content"
Standard | Reference content |
ISO-19107, 2019 | Spatial representation of geographic information data |
ISO-19108, 2002 | Temporal representation of geographic information data |
ISO-19115-2, 2008 | Metadata structure for raster data |
ISO-19130, 2018 | Description framework for remote sensing sensors |
Table 4
SWRL rules for earthquake impact range"
Rule | Explanation |
EventInstances(?a) ^ Magnitude(?a,?b) ^ swrlb:greaterThan (?b, “8.0”^^xsd:float) -> ImpactRange (?a, “240”^^xsd:float) | If the magnitude is greater than 8.0, the impact range is 240 km |
EventInstances(?a) ^ Magnitude(?a,?b) ^ swrlb:greaterThan (?b, “7.0”^^xsd:float) -> ImpactRange (?a, “120”^^xsd:float) | If the magnitude is greater than 7.0, the impact range is 120 km |
EventInstances(?a) ^ Magnitude(?a,?b) ^ swrlb:greaterThan (?b, “6.0”^^xsd:float) -> ImpactRange (?a, “60”^^xsd:float) | If the magnitude is greater than 6.0, the impact range is 60 km |
1 | LI D R, ZHANG P L, XIA G S Automatic analysis and mining of remote sensing big data. Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 2014, 43 (12): 1211- 1216. |
2 | PANG W J, LI H, MA X Y, et al A semantic-centered cloud control framework for autonomous unmanned system. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33 (4): 771- 784. |
3 | MOHAMAD U H , AHMAD M N, BENFERDIA Y, et al. An overview of ontologies in virtual reality-based training for healthcare domain. Frontiers in Medicine, 2021, 8: 698855. |
4 | LIU J, LIU S G. Semantic retrieval for remote sensing images using association rules mining. Proc. of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2015: 509−512. |
5 | WANG H H, ZHOU Z Q, BO D W. Deep instance search network for remote sensing image retrieval. Proc. of the 39th Chinese Control Conference, 2020: 7218−7222. |
6 |
CHENG Q M, HUANG H Y, YE L, et al A semantic-preserving deep hashing model for multi-label remote sensing image retrieval. Remote Sensing, 2021, 13 (24): 4965.
doi: 10.3390/rs13244965 |
7 | BUSSE J, HUMM B, LUEBBERT C, et al Actually, what does “ontology” mean?. Journal of Computing & Information Technology, 2015, 23 (1): 29- 41. |
8 |
YU A C Methods in biomedical ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2006, 39 (3): 252- 266.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2005.11.006 |
9 |
ANTEZANA E, EGANA M, BLONDE W, et al The cell cycle ontology: an application ontology for the representation and integrated analysis of the cell cycle process. Genome Biology, 2009, 10 (5): R58.
doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-5-r58 |
10 | GRUBER T R. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 1993, 5 (2): 199–220. |
11 |
JUNIOR P, SERGIO S, FALBO R, et al From a scrum reference ontology to the integration of applications for data-driven software development. Information and Software Technology, 2021, 136, 106570.
doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106570 |
12 |
GRAU B C, HORROCKS I, MOTIK B, et al OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics, 2008, 6 (4): 309- 322.
doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001 |
13 | IAN H, PETER F P, HAROLD B, et al. SWRL: a semantic web rule language. https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL. |
14 |
TANG X L, XIAO M Q, HU B, et al Exchanging knowledge for test-based diagnosis using OWL Ontologies and SWRL Rules. Procedia Computer Science, 2018, 131, 847- 854.
doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.279 |
15 |
WU Z N, SHEN Y X, WANG H L, et al An ontology-based framework for heterogeneous data management and its application for urban flood disasters. Earth Science Informatics, 2020, 13 (2): 377- 390.
doi: 10.1007/s12145-019-00439-3 |
16 |
GE X T, YANG Y, CHEN J H, et al Disaster prediction knowledge graph based on multi-source spatio-temporal information. Remote Sensing, 2022, 14 (5): 1214.
doi: 10.3390/rs14051214 |
17 | MUGHAL M H, SHAIKH Z A, WAGAN A I, et al. ORFFM: an ontology-based semantic model of river flow and flood mitigation. IEEE Access, 2021, 9: 44003−44031. |
18 | USCHOLD M, KING M. Towards a methodology for building ontologies basic ontological issues in knowledge sharing. Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995. https://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/oplan/documents/1995/95-ont-ijcai95-ont-method.pdf. |
19 | GRUNINGER M, FOX M S. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. Proc. of the IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, 1995. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2288533_Methodology_for_the_Design_and_Evaluation_of_Ontologies. |
20 | NOY N F, MCGUINNESS D L. Ontology development101: a guide to creating your first ontology. http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology-tutorial-noy-mcguinness-abstract.html. |
21 | FERNANDEZ L M, GOMEZ P A, JURISTO N. METHONTOLOGY: from ontological art towards ontological engineering. Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997: 33−40. |
22 | SWARTOUT B, PATIL R, KNIGHT K, et al. Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologiest. Proc. of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997: 138−148. |
23 | ABDUL S, ELY S, MOHAMMAD N A, et al Comparative analysis of methodologies for domain ontology development: a systematic review. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 2020, 11 (5): 99- 108. |
24 | NANCY B, NAVJOT K Protege: review of a powerful ontology tool. Research Cell: An International Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2016, 22, 544- 552. |
25 |
HAFIDHA B, KAMAL B, RICHARD L Geographic ontology for major disasters: methodology and implementation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019, 34, 232- 242.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.021 |
26 | GU J H. Ontology construction and reasoning method of rainstorm and flood disaster chain. Wuhan: Wuhan University, 2017. (in Chinese) |
27 | CHEN S P. Remote sensing dictionary. Beijing: Science Press, 1990. (in Chinese) |
28 | ISO/TC 211 Secretariat. ISO 19115-2: 2008 Geographic information-metadata-Part 2: extensions for imagery and gridded data. Lysaker: ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, 2008. |
29 | ISO/TC 211 Secretariat. ISO 19107: 2019 Geographic information — Spatial schema. Lysaker: ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, 2019. |
30 | ISO/TC 211 Secretariat. ISO 19108: 2002 Geographic information—temporal schema . Lysaker: ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, 2002. |
31 | ISO/TC 211 Secretariat. ISO 19130-1: 2018 Geographic information—imagery sensor models for geopositioning—Part 1: Fundamentals. Lysaker: ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, 2018. |
32 | LI X, LI Z Y, WANG C L, et al Conversion of satellite imaging demands based on ontology and rule. Computer Technology and Development, 2015, 25 (2): 189- 193,198. |
33 | China Earthquake Administration. DB/T 75-2018: Earthquake disaster assessment based on remote sensing-building damage. Beijing: China Earthquake Administration, 2018. (in Chinese) |
34 | The W3C SPARQL Working Group. SPARQL 1.1 Overview. https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/. |
35 | RICHARD C, DERI N G, DAVID W, et al. RDF 1.1 Concepts and abstract syntax. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/. |
[1] | Weijian PANG, Hui LI, Xinyi MA, Hailin ZHANG. A semantic-centered cloud control framework for autonomous unmanned system [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(4): 771-784. |
[2] | Yonglin LEI, Zhi ZHU, Qun LI. An ontological metamodeling framework for semantic simulation model engineering [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(3): 527-538. |
[3] | Weixing Zhu, Zhixue Wang, Guolin Hou, and Minggang Yu. Capability-based context ontology modeling and reasoning for C4ISR communication [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 27(4): 845-. |
[4] | Huijiao Bu, Jin Zhang, and Yazhong Luo. Space station short-term mission planning using ontology modelling and time iteration [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 27(2): 407-421. |
[5] | Qingchao Dong, Zhixue Wang, Weixing Zhu, and Hongyue He. Capability requirements modeling and verification based on fuzzy ontology [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2012, 23(1): 78-87. |
[6] | Chen Jia & Wu Yue. Rules-based object-relational databases ontology construction [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2009, 20(1): 211-215. |
[7] | Zheng Liping, Li Guangyao, Liang Yongquan & Sha Jing. Design of ontology mapping framework and improvement of similarity computation [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2007, 18(3): 641-645. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||