GeoSPARQL explained

GeoSPARQL is a model for representing and querying geospatial linked data for the Semantic Web. It is standardized by the Open Geospatial Consortium as OGC GeoSPARQL. The definition of a small ontology based on well-understood OGC standards is intended to provide a standardized exchange basis for geospatial RDF data which can support both qualitative and quantitative spatial reasoning and querying with the SPARQL database query language.

The Ordnance Survey Linked Data Platform uses OWL mappings for GeoSPARQL equivalent properties in its vocabulary.^{[1] [2]} The LinkedGeoData data set is a work of the Agile Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web (AKSW) research group at the University of Leipzig,^[3] a group mostly known for DBpedia, that uses the GeoSPARQL vocabulary to represent OpenStreetMap data.

In particular, GeoSPARQL provides for:

• a small topological ontology in RDFS/OWL for representation using
  • Geography Markup Language (GML) and well-known text representation of geometry (WKT) literals, and
  • Simple Features, RCC8, and DE-9IM (a.k.a. Clementini, Egenhofer) topological relationship vocabularies and ontologies for qualitative reasoning, and
• a SPARQL query interface using
  • a set of topological SPARQL extension functions for quantitative reasoning, and
  • a set of Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Core inference rules for query transformation and interpretation.

Example

The following example SPARQL query could help model the question "What is within the bounding box defined by 38.9136°N -77.089°W and 38.8863°N -77.03°W?"

PREFIX geo: PREFIX geof:

SELECT ?whatWHERE

RCC8 use in GeoSPARQL

RCC8 has been implemented in GeoSPARQL as described below:

Implementations

There are (almost) no complete implementations of GeoSPARQL; however, there are partial or vendor implementations of GeoSPARQL. Currently there are the following implementations:

Apache Marmotta

GeoSPARQL was implemented in the context of the Google Summer of Code 2015.^[4] on Apache Marmotta; it uses PostGIS, and it is available just for PostgreSQL.

Apache Jena Since version 2.11 Apache Jena has a GeoSPARQL extension.^[5]

Ontop VKG

Support for GeoSPARQL was added to Ontop in version 4.2. ^[6]

Parliament

Parliament has an almost complete implementation of GeoSPARQL by using JENA and a modified ARQ query processor.^[7]

Eclipse RDF4J

Eclipse RDF4J is an open-source Java framework for scalable RDF processing, storage, reasoning and SPARQL querying. It offers support for a large subset of GeoSPARQL functionality.^[8]

Strabon

Strabon is an open-source semantic spatiotemporal RDF store that supports two popular extensions of SPARQL: stSPARQL and GeoSPARQL. Strabon is built by extending the well-known RDF store Sesame and extends Sesame's components to manage thematic, spatial and temporal data that is stored in the backend RDBMS. It has been fully tested with PostgreSQL (with PostGIS and PostgreSQL-Temporal extensions^[9]) and MonetDB (with geom^[10] module).

OpenSahara uSeekM IndexingSail Sesame Sail plugin

uSeekM IndexingSail uses a PostGIS installation to deliver GeoSPARQL. They deliver partial implementation of GeoSPARQL along with some vendor prefixes.^{[11] [12]}

Oracle Spatial and Graph

GraphDB

GraphDB is an enterprise ready Semantic Graph Database, compliant with W3C Standards. Semantic graph databases (also called RDF triplestores) provide the core infrastructure for solutions where modelling agility, data integration, relationship exploration and cross-enterprise data publishing and consumption are important.

Stardog

Stardog is an enterprise data unification platform built on smart graph technology: query, search, inference, and data virtualization.

Virtuoso Universal Server

Virtuoso Universal Server is a middleware and database engine hybrid that combines the functionality of a traditional Relational database management system (RDBMS), Object-relational database (ORDBMS), virtual database, RDF, XML, free-text, web application server and file server functionality in a single system.^[13]

Performance and Compliance Benchmarking

Benchmarking GeoSPARQL 1.0 and geospatial-enabled triplestores, in general, has been conducted using several approaches. One can distinguish between performance and compliance benchmarks. The former can reveal whether a triplestore gives a timely answer to a GeoSPARQL query and may or may not check the answer for correctness. The latter checks whether a triplestore gives compliant answers with respect to the definitions of the GeoSPARQL 1.0 standard irrespective of the time the query takes for execution.

Well-known geospatial performance benchmarks include the Geographica^[14] and Geographica 2^[15] benchmarks which track the performance of predefined sets of queries on synthetic and real-world datasets. They each test a subset of GeoSPARQL query functions for performance.Another performance benchmark by Huang et al.^[16] assessed the performance of GeoSPARQL-enabled triple stores as part of a spatial data infrastructure.

Compliance benchmarking of OGC standards is usually conducted as part of the OGC Team Engine Test Suite^[17] which allows companies to obtain certification for implementing certain OGC specifications correctly. As of 2021, however, the OGC Team Engine does not provide a set of compliance tests to test GeoSPARQL compliance.Nevertheless, in 2021, Jovanovik et al.^[18] developed the first comprehensive, reproducible GeoSPARQL Compliance benchmark in which nine different triple stores were initially tested. The results of these first compliance tests along with the software ^[19] are available on Github.^[20]

Submission

The GeoSPARQL standard was submitted to the OGC by:

• Australian Bureau of Meteorology
• Bentley Systems
• Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
• Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG)
• Natural Resources Canada
• Interactive Instruments GmbH
• Oracle America
• Ordnance Survey
• Raytheon
• Traverse Technologies
• US Geological Survey (USGS)

Future development

With regards to future work, the GeoSPARQL standard states:

In 2019, the OGC's GeoSemantics Domain Working Group^[21] set out to assess the current usage of GeoSPARQL in different domains in the White Paper "OGC Benefits of Representing Spatial Data Using Semantic and Graph Technologies"^[22] and collected initial feature requests to extend GeoSPARQL.

This led to the re-establishment of the GeoSPARQL Standards Working Group with a newly formed working group charter in September 2020.^{[23] [24]} The group is working towards a new release of the GeoSPARQL standard, with non-breaking changes - GeoSPARQL 1.1 - in the summer of 2021, the development of which can be followed on Github.

At the GeoLD workshop 2021, held as part of the Extended Semantic Web Conference 2021, an outline of the additions which are likely to be present in GeoSPARQL 1.1 has been presented.^[25] The changes have been further consolidated and summarized in a publication in the ISPRS International Journal of GeoInformation.^[26]

See also

• Spatial relation
• DE-9IM

References

• Battle . Robert . Kolas . Dave . 2012 . Enabling the Geospatial Semantic Web with Parliament and GeoSPARQL . . 3 . 4 . 355–370 . . 10.3233/SW-2012-0065 . 21 November 2012 .
• http://iswc2012.semanticweb.org/sites/default/files/76490289.pdf . Strabon: A Semantic Geospatial DBMS . Kostis . Kyzirakos . Manos . Karpathiotakis . Manolis . Koubarakis. The Semantic Web – ISWC 2012 . Lecture Notes in Computer Science . November 2012 . 7649 . 295–311 . 11th International Semantic Web Conference . http://iswc2012.semanticweb.org/ . Boston, MA, United States . 10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_19 . 978-3-642-35175-4 . 21 November 2012. free .
• E. Lynn . Usery . Dalia . Varanka . 2012 . Design and Development of Linked Data from The National Map . . 3 . 4 . 371–384 . . 10.3233/SW-2011-0054 . 19 December 2012 .
• Web site: Introduction to geospatial semantics and technology workshop handbook: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1109 . United States Geological Survey . United States Geological Survey . 30 May 2012 . United States Geological Survey . 18 December 2012.
• Web site: RDF versus GML . Chris . Goad . September 2004 . 4 December 2012 . https://web.archive.org/web/20120422121420/http://www.mapbureau.com/gml/ . 22 April 2012 . dead .

External links

• GeoSPARQL – A Geographic Query Language for RDF Data standard from the Open Geospatial Consortium
• Linked Data Platform webapps from the UK Ordnance Survey
• LinkedGeoData for OpenStreetMap data
• data.geohive.ie from Ordnance Survey Ireland

Notes and References

1. Web site: GeoSPARQL and Ordnance Survey Linked Data. John. Goodwin. 26 April 2013. johngoodwin225.wordpress.com.
2. Web site: New Linked Data service launches. Gemma. 3 June 2013. blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk. http://web.archive.org/web/20131008225928/http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2013/06/new-linked-data-service-launches/ . 8 October 2013.
3. Web site: Imprint. 2012-05-18. AKSW. http://web.archive.org/web/20210615181523/http://linkedgeodata.org/Imprint . 15 June 2021 . linkedgeodata.org.
4. Web site: Proposal to Implement GeoSPARQL in Marmotta . Marmotta Wiki . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20150626142820/https://wiki.apache.org/marmotta/GSoC/2015/MARMOTTA-584 . 2015-06-26.
5. Web site: Spatial searches with SPARQL . Apache Jena.
6. Web site: Standards compliance: GeoSPARQL 1.0 . Ontop .
7. Web site: Parliament . https://web.archive.org/web/20140430085315/http://parliament.semwebcentral.org/ . 30 April 2014 .
8. Web site: Programming with RDF4J . Eclipse rdf4j: documentation . The Eclipse Foundation . http://web.archive.org/web/20161104234318/http://docs.rdf4j.org/programming/#_geosparql . 4 November 2016.
9. Web site: PostgreSQL-Temporal . jeff-davis . GitHub. 21 January 2021.
10. Web site: GeoSpatial . MonetDB Docs . http://web.archive.org/web/20120328045749/https://www.monetdb.org/Documentation/Extensions/GIS . 28 March 2012.
11. Web site: IndexingSail - uSeekM - Adds Meaning to the Web . 2012-12-16 . https://web.archive.org/web/20140415025231/https://dev.opensahara.com/projects/useekm/wiki/IndexingSail#GeoSPARQL . 2014-04-15 . dead .
12. Web site: GeoReference - uSeekM - Adds Meaning to the Web . 2014-04-14 . https://web.archive.org/web/20140415025812/https://dev.opensahara.com/projects/useekm/wiki/GeoReference . 2014-04-15 . dead .
13. Web site: Williams . Hugh . October 29, 2018 . Virtuoso GeoSPARQL Demo Server . 9 February 2024 . OpenLink Software Community Forum.
14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41338-4_22. 10.1007/978-3-642-41338-4_22. Geographica: A Benchmark for Geospatial RDF Stores (Long Version). The Semantic Web – ISWC 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2013. Garbis. George. Kyzirakos. Kostis. Koubarakis. Manolis. 8219. 343–359. 978-3-642-41338-4. 40326844 . 12th International Semantic Web Conference.
15. Evaluating Geospatial RDF Stores Using the Benchmark Geographica 2. 10.1007/s13740-021-00118-x. 2021. Ioannidis. Theofilos. Garbis. George. Kyzirakos. Kostis. Bereta. Konstantina. Koubarakis. Manolis. Journal on Data Semantics. 10. 3–4. 189–228. 1906.01933. 174799159.
16. 10.3390/ijgi8070310. free. Assessment and Benchmarking of Spatially Enabled RDF Stores for the Next Generation of Spatial Data Infrastructure. 2019. Huang. Weiming. Raza. Syed Amir. Mirzov. Oleg. Harrie. Lars. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 8. 7. 310. 2019IJGI....8..310H.
17. Web site: TEAM Engine . Open Geospatial Consortium.
18. 10.3390/ijgi10070487. free. A GeoSPARQL Compliance Benchmark. 2021. Jovanovik. Milos. Homburg. Timo. Spasić. Mirko. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 10. 7. 487. 2102.06139. 2021IJGI...10..487J.
19. 10.1016/j.simpa.2021.100071. Software for the GeoSPARQL compliance benchmark. 2021. Jovanovik. Milos. Homburg. Timo. Spasić. Mirko. Software Impacts. 8. 100071. free.
20. Web site: OpenLinkSoftware: GeoSPARQLBenchmark. Github .
21. Web site: Geosemantics DWG . ogc.org . http://web.archive.org/web/20200809121239/https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/semantics . 9 August 2020.
22. Web site: OGC Benefits of Representing Spatial Data Using Semantic and Graph Technologies . Abhayaratna . J . van den Brink . L . Car . N . Atkinson . R . Homburg . T . Knibbe . F . McGlinn . K . Wagner . A . Bonduel . M . Holten Rasmussen . M . Thiery . F . Open Geospatial Consortium . 5 October 2020.
23. Web site: GeoSPARQL SWG . ogc.org . http://web.archive.org/web/20210118141442/https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/geosparqlswg . 18 January 2021.
24. Web site: OGC GeoSPARQL SWG Charter . 2020 . ogc.org . Open Geospatial Consortium.
25. GeoSPARQL 1.1: an almost decadal update to the most important geospatial LOD standard . Car . Nicholas J. . Homburg . Timo . GeoLD Workshop at ESWC 2021 . May 2021.
26. Car. Nicholas J.. Homburg. Timo. February 2022. GeoSPARQL 1.1: Motivations, Details and Applications of the Decadal Update to the Most Important Geospatial LOD Standard. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. en. 11. 2. 117. 10.3390/ijgi11020117. 2022IJGI...11..117C. free.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "GeoSPARQL".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.