quality issues in spatial databases m. mostafavi, g. edwards, r. jeansoulin crg & geoide &...
TRANSCRIPT
Quality issues in Spatial Quality issues in Spatial DatabasesDatabases
M. Mostafavi, G. Edwards, R. Jeansoulin M. Mostafavi, G. Edwards, R. Jeansoulin
CRG & GEOIDE & REVIGISCRG & GEOIDE & REVIGISVictoria, May 2003Victoria, May 2003
Contents
Introduction
Problems
Objective
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusions and perspectives
IntroductionData fusion and Data Quality
Multi sources spatial data
Vector data : BNDT, BDTQ, …
Raster data: satellites images, aerial images,…
Need for better qualityLogical consistency
Completeness
Semantic accuracy
Temporal accuracy
Positional accuracy
and more …
Decision making (Effective crisis management (MSPQ))
A real case problem BNDT: good geometry Statistics Canada database, Canada election database:
reach descriptive information but weak geometry How to reconcile these two data sets?
BNDT
SC, EC
Context
Fusion
SDB1
SDB3
SDB2 Information of greater quality
User vision(fitness for use)
Producer vision(Product ontology)
Logical consistencyLogical consistency is an important element of data quality. It defines the degree of consistency of the data with respect to its specifications.
Integrity constrains
Explicit rules stated in the data specifications (e.g. connectivity between two objects)
Implicit rules (e.g. a river always flows downstream)
Ontology vs. specifications
Ontology
specifications
Project definition
NTDBOntology
BDTQOntology
NTDB data
BDTQdata
New dataset
Ontology consistency
dataconsistency
dataConsistency
vs. BNDT
dataconsistency
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3Step 4
Step 5
Integrated ontology
Mapping the ontologiesOntology fusion
Data fusion
Does thisHelp?
Lack of explicit rules
Yes?......No
Consistency in NTDB
NTDB Ontologies
DelphiInterface
DelphiInterface
Studying theLogical consistency of the dataset
Prolog
Dataset
Step 1 Step 2
Formalizing the ontology
Knowledge baseFacts Rules
Queries
BNDTOntology
Spatial relations in NTDB
Spatial relations in NTDB are:
1. Connection relations
2. Sharing relations
3. adjacency relations
4. Superposition relations
AB
A
B
A
B
C D E
AB
C
1
2
34
Logical approach- factsFor NTDB the facts consist of
Taxonomy of NTDB Themes Entities Allowed Combinations Code (NTDB identity code) Geometric representations
Spatial relations Connection Sharing Superposition/ adjacency Minimal values (e.g. distance constraints between objects)
Logical approach- facts
Types of facts Total groups Facts
Taxonomy 368 386
Connection 574 330 796
Sharing 523 15 853
Adjacency/superposition 138 1637
Total 348672
There are about 350,000 facts describing the NTDB• Remark: regrouping of objects for programming purposes
has created some inconsistencies
Logical approach- rules
Relation Inconsistency rules
Connection a. Object A is connected to object B and the inverse relation is not defined.
b. Connection is illegal (C1=0-0) and for the same objects we have C1 ≠ 0-0 .
Sharing a. Object A shares with object B but the inverse relation is not defined.
b. The same objects share with different values of C2.
SuperpositionAdjacency
a. Two objects are superposed and are adjacent at the same time.
Several rules are defined to analyze the ontological consistency of the NTDB.
Inconsistency rules
Results (1/2)
Inconsistency (inverse connection)Data dictionary: (generic relation) between themes: Railway (L) Connected to Road (L) between themes : Road (L) Connected to Railway (L)
Table of connection and cardinalities
Code Entity Combination C1 Code
3002 Railway Standard, Ground level, Operational, Multiple
1-2 3660
3660 Road Secondary, Ground level ,Hard surface
Not verified
?
Results (2/2)
Inconsistency (Different Values for the cardinality one)
Data dictionary: (Generic relation)
Gas and oil facilities (P) is Connected to Building (P)
Table of connection and cardinalities
Code Entity Combination C1 Code
788 Gas and oil facilities
Generic/
unknown
0-0 147
788 Gas and oil facilities
Generic/
unknown
-
(Not verified)
147
?
Consistency in Data
NTDB Ontologies
DelphiInterface
Studying theLogical consistency of the dataset
PrologVB
Interface
Dataset
Step 1 Step 2
Geomedia professional
•Meet•Entirely Contained•Entirely Contained by•Contains and •Contained by•Spatially equal•touch
Meet
Overlap
Spatial operations
Mapping
Polygon – Polygon Relations
Relations Disjoint Meet Equal Inside ContainsCovered
byCovers Overlap
Connection
Sharing x x x x
Superposition x x x x x x
Adjacent x
Mapping problems
Several problems
Confusions in spatial relations
Unique mapping is not possible
Cardinalities cannot be considered
Step 2: BNDT Data vs its ontology
Data vs ontology
File 21E05 Region: Sherbrooke 68 Entities 23,283 objects Analyzed binary relations:
Contours vs. water bodies Buildings vs. roads Water bodies vs. buildings Liquid depot vs. Liquid depot Roads vs. water bodies …
Results
Liquid depot vs. Liquid depot Spatial representations (Point, Area)Spatial relations
Ontology/ specification (superposition is illegal)Data (superposition case is found)
• Problem: Road crosses a water body• Illegal relation with respect to semantics of the
objects• Incomplete ontology
Results
• Problem: Cut line crosses a water body• Illegal relation with respect to semantic definition
of the objects• Incomplete ontology
Results
• Problem: Contour crosses water body• Illegal relation with respect to the ontology• Inconsistent data
Results
Results• Problem: Road crosses water body• Illegal relation with respect to the ontology• Inconsistent data
• Problem: Road crosses Building• Illegal relation with respect to the semantics of
objects• Incomplete ontology
Results
• Problem: Water body (L) superposed Vegetation (A)• Illegal relation with respect to the ontology• Inconsistent data• Control system problem
Results
• Problem: Buildings (S) superposed to water body (A)
• Illegal relation with respect to the semantics of objects
• Inconsistent data
Results
• Problem: Building (A) Overlap Vegetation (A)• Illegal relation with respect to the semantics of
objects• Inconsistent data
Results
Suggestions, solutions
Adding new rulesBuilding (a) and vegetation (a) (illegal
superposition)Road (l) and building (conditional
superposition)A better control system is needed
Find exceptions
Current situationProduct ontology is analyzed
Mapping of topological relations to binary relations
Ontology translation in prolog (Delphi program)
Consistency studding of spatial relations
Connection (table C)
Sharing (table D)
Superposition and adjacency (table E)
Consistency between different relations (fusion of facts)
connection and sharing , connection and superposition / adjacency,
sharing and superposition / adjacency
Consistency of data vs. specifications are studied
Future work
logical consistency of other available
datasets
Mapping of ontologies
Fusion of ontologies
Fusion of data
Consistency of the newly created data set