Submissions:Map Legend Ontology
From Odp
| If you are a member of quality committee please visit the
If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can: specify if this revision takes in account any of the review(s) In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal Current revision ID: 12819 |
Graphical representation
Diagram (this article has no graphical representation)
General description
| Name: | Map Legend Ontology |
|---|---|
| Submitted by: | SongGao |
| Also Known As: | |
| Intent: | Map legends are keys to the understanding of symbols used on maps. Without such legends and the knowledge to interpret them, maps are reduced to mere pictures.From an information retrieval perspective, facts such as that a certain map contains transportation features organized in a hierarchy of highways, streets, trails, and so forth, remain hidden and therefore can neither be used by machines nor humans to enable a richer search for map contents. |
| Domains: | |
| Competency Questions: |
Which maps show places with a population density larger than 1000 people per square miles? Which maps contain both Ski Areas and Camping Areas? |
| Solution description: | In this work, we formalize a map legend ontology (MLO) that can be used for semantically annotate and query map contents via their legend in a machine-readable manner using Semantic Web and Linked Data technologies. |
| Reusable OWL Building Block: | http://stko-exp.geog.ucsb.edu/mlo/map_legend_ontology.owl (735) |
| Consequences: | |
| Scenarios: | |
| Known Uses: | |
| Web References: | |
| Other References: | |
| Examples (OWL files): | |
| Extracted From: | |
| Reengineered From: | |
| Has Components: | |
| Specialization Of: | |
| Related CPs: |
Elements
The Map Legend Ontology Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:
Additional information
Scenarios
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
Reviews
There is no review about this proposal. This revision (revision ID 12819) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
Modeling issues
There is no Modeling issue related to this proposal.
References
