[OSM-talk] Internship search
Hello I am Gianfranco Gliozzo an Italian civil engineer finalizing a Msc in GIS (www.msc-gima.nl).I am an OSM member my nickname is Gianfra, I mainly edited in my home town, Catania. The Msc is held by four Dutch institutions TU Delft, University of Utrecht, ITC Enschede, Wageningen University, sharing their expertise in research and education in the GIS field. For the final thesis I worked using semantic web technologies using LinkedGeoData which is the semantic translation of OpenStreetMap. Therefore I designed and tested SPARQL queries across the LOD to obtain a linguistic query expansion over LinkedGeoData using WordNet(2.0) RDF/OWL. I am looking for a hosting company for the Internship. The ideal company might have the core business in the geoinformation field. Thank you Gianfranco Gliozzo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Semantics layer for tags
Most of the things you are discussing about can be done in the LinkingOpenData (LOD) environment where you have ontologies dealing with almost every kind of human knowledge. In the LOD there are already several linguistic resources, some of them multilingual.I already developed and tested the feasibility of a SPARQL query expansion using linguistic resources published online.The main bottleneck between OSM and semantic web is constituted by the semantic translation of OSM itself.The OSM database looks poorly expressive semantically and the first semantic translation of OSM, LinkedGeoData already published in the LOD, while trying to overcome some deficiencies needs further development from my point of view.Gianfra > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > From: e...@waniasset.com > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:35:20 + > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Semantics layer for tags > > Martijn van Exel rtijn.org> writes: > > >> This is just an example, but you will have these assumptions for most > >> of the tags: for the local mapper they are included, but on a global > >> basis they won't be valid. The meaning of a tag is somehow always > >> dependent on the cultural background / area. > > > >Yes, that is exactly where a semantic layer would come in! For > >example, I would tag a feature in a semantics-enabled JOSM in my > >native language, Dutch, as "provinciale weg". A lookup in the ontology > >would expose an ambiguity: a provincial road could be highway=primary > >or highway=secondary, depending on the road number. Human > >disambiguation would be required, the attributes of the semantic > >relation between 'NL:provinciale weg' and 'highway=primary' and > >'highway=secondary' could provide a clue to do this. > > So you're saying that if some extra layer existed, you would be able to > add data to the map using natural language rather than following a tagging > scheme? Or do you mean that different language communities would have their > own tagging schemes, with special values derived from their language (just > as current OSM tagging is derived from English), and an intermediate layer > would translate it? > > Or maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick and the important issue is not > natural language but different classifications between countries, so that > the concept of a 'provincial road' exists in the Netherlands but is not an > official road classification elsewhere. In that case, it would make most > sense even for Dutch-speaking users to tag it as highway=provincial_way > or another English-like tag scheme, to keep things consistent. > > -- > Ed Avis > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Semantics layer for tags
Yes Martijn there are weak classifications, everything that is not mapped is not represented in the database. For example the classification in five groups of tags and in the subgroups in the map feature list is not expressed in the database. OSM database is missing abstraction levels. Moreover all tags are treated seamlessly, even when they are properties or subclassifications. Martin, existing linguistic resources in the semantic web are able to identify not only synonymy but almost all relation between concepts, also some topological relation like partonomy (a thing is a part of another). Gianfra > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:27:01 +0100 > From: dieterdre...@gmail.com > To: m...@rtijn.org > CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; e...@waniasset.com > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Semantics layer for tags > > 2011/1/10 Martijn van Exel : > > (forgot to copy to talk) > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > >> Martijn van Exel rtijn.org> writes: > > The latter. The user would be able to tag a feature with "chemist", > > "pharmacy", "farmacia or "apotheek" and that would result in the same > > coding in the OSM database (currently: shop=chemist). > > > amenity=pharmacy, dispensing=yes/no > > When consuming > > OSM data, the process could be reversed; based on the locale, a > > feature tagged "shop=chemist" could (would) be output as being one of > > these culturally determined Things. Note that a "chemist", a > > "pharmacy", a "farmacia" and an "apotheek" are names for something > > that is similar across cultures and languages, but not literally the > > same. > > > > The idea is to *avoid* having different classifications on the > > database level, even though one concept could be represented by two > > different names in one language (consider freeway / highway). Any > > ambiguity arising from that would have to be handled by additional > > attributes. > > > I fear that a system like that will soon become utterly complex, thus > disabling most of the mappers of taking part in the > "tag-development-process". It would shift the discussions away from > the ML and wiki to defining the semantic rule set. And still we would > have to have definitions in natural language to define what a feature > is about, so there is no guarantee that there won't be contradictions > or different tags with the same meaning. > > I agree that it is a good idea to develop such a ruleset (or extend an > existing one like linked geodata) to make the usage of our dataset > easier (for developers), but I agree with you: it is not a magic wand. > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
