Database Reference
In-Depth Information
11
Linking It All Together
11.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we provide a summary of the topic and highlight those points we
think are especially important, along with some suggestions for directions that the
Semantic Web, and the position of Geographic Information (GI) within it, may
take in the future. We believe that Linked Data and the Semantic Web will have
an increasing impact on the manner in which data is managed and utilized. It will
in turn influence and affect the way in which GI is treated and has the capability to
make the use of GI much more widespread. The technology behind the Semantic
Web is itself far from perfect and in places still quite immature. We have not tried to
present it as a panacea, and it certainly cannot always model GI as accurately as we
might wish; this limitation also extends of course to any other kind of information.
But, by understanding the limitations inherent in both the technology and the GI
(or more generally, the data) that we have, we can still develop useful models of our
knowledge and build applications based on these models.
11.2 THE WIDE SCOPE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
One of the first things to remind ourselves of is that GI has a much broader definition
than the data we may find within a GIS. It is certainly true that most of the thought
on GI, and almost all of the standards, has come from the community of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) users, broadened slightly by those interested in database
technology such as Oracle. It should be equally clear, however, that very significant
amounts of data that have geographic components exist outside this community.
While the usage of GI may not be quite as ubiquitous as some of those within
the inner circle may believe, it is nonetheless very widespread; location is a power-
ful common and shared thread that runs through many data sources. Where such
threads intertwine between datasets, shared location can therefore act as an impor-
tant binding agent between data.
However, conventional means of representing and manipulating GI do not always
make it easy for data to be exchanged and integrated. Where standards for exchange
exist, they tend to be geometry and geography centric—they largely focus on the
geometric component and stem from the belief that the user is fundamentally inter-
ested in the geography included in the data representation. This is certainly true of
the GIS specialist and for the many others who do regard geography and geometry as
of inherent importance; for them, these standards are a good solution. However, other
people may well find the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards less useful
because geography is less important for them, and their primary focus is elsewhere.
As there is a good chance they do not use GIS, they are probably unfamiliar with
OGC standards, and their interaction with data is dominated by other standards.
225
