Information Systems Architecture Forum Enterprise Service Bus - WordPress… · 2015-02-07 · Workshop on Land Cover Classification (FAO LCML/LCCS v.3) Paramarivo ... Fire monitoring

Topic:

AN APPROACH TO LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION

the LCML (Land Cover Meta Language) model

by

Antonio Di Gregorio

FAO-NRCE

Workshop on Land Cover Classification

(FAO LCML/LCCS v.3)

Paramarivo - Suriname 9-13 March

This presentation gives an overview on the basic

concepts to understand the logic of LCML Land Cover

Meta Language

(Part of the standardization in ISO TC211).

It address the characterization of land features and

harmonization of different Land Cover Classification

Systems or Legends, so that data from multiple

sources, and data prepared in different application

environments can be compared and integrated.

Individual data sets are developed using ISO 19109

compliant object oriented Application Schema

described using the LCML meta model.

SAME BASIC DEFINITIONS

Definition

Land cover is the observed (bio)physical cover

on the earth’s surface.

It includes vegetation and man-made features as well as bare rock. bare soil and inland water surfaces.

Land Cover is the basic information for geospatial data bases.

It can be considered as a boundary object to link different disciplines.

It has been always considered the key geographically explicit

feature which other disciplines may use as geographical reference.

Land cover is one of the most important element for description and study of the environment

the main resource controlling primary productivity for terrestrial ecosystems

can be defined in terms of land (and its cover)

land cover is the easiest detectable indicator of human interventions on the land

Land cover is a critical parameter for environmental databases

land cover changes quickly over time

GEO societal benefits and land cover observations

Climate Land change & GHG

emis. Water+energy exchanges

Weather Land–surface climate int. Vegetation characteristics

Health Land change / disease

vectors / boundary cond.

Disasters Fire monitoring

Land degradation assess.

Agriculture Cultivation pattern+forestry

Land degradations

Ecosystems Change environment cond.

Services + accounting

Energy Bio-energy/biomass

Wind/hydro power assess.

Water Water resources / quality Land+water use pattern

Biodiversity Ecosystem characteristics Habitats + fragmentation

Observing land cover as ECV

Integrated land cover observations

IN-SITU (+ IKONOS type)

periodically (usually 1-10 yrs)

Detailed physionomy

Floristics and species distribution

Crop type and rotation etc.

Thematic detail

Spatial deta

il

high

high low

LANDSAT/SPOT – type

inter-annual (1-5 yrs)

Vegetation

physionomy

Global archives

In situ database

Assuming observation

continuity and

consistency

Global daily observations

Land type/

Phenology

Completed and endorsed by IGOS partnership and GEO in 2007

CHARACTERIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

LAND FEATURES

To classify is a human activity.

Classification is the means whereby we order knowledge. Our lives are surrounded with systems of classification, limned by standards,

formats, etc.

The oldest method to communicate knowledge is, no doubt, human language

and conversation, specific language elements or specialized terms are created

to exchange particular types of information.

A body of shared knowledge as a basis for communication is therefore

part of most sciences, and historically we find ample evidence of specialized

terminology, hierarchical thinking and classifications established

within those disciplines.

Information Technology Division (CIO) Knowledge Information Systems Architecture Forum (KISAF)

Sokal (1974) defines a classification as:

“the ordering or arrangement of objects into groups or sets on the basis

of their relationships”, and

Bowker and Star (1999) as:

“a spatial temporal or spatio-temporal segmentation of the world”. They define

a ‘classification system’ as “a set of boxes (metaphorical or literal) into which things

can be put in order to then do some kind of work bureaucratic or knowledge

production”.

The “real world” Teoretical representation

of a classification system

A CLASSIFICATION WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO REPRESENT ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE

REAL WORLD. IT MUST BE CLEAR THAT A CLASSIFICATION REFLECT (JUST) A

SPECIFIC SCOPE (OR FEATURES OF A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA) FOR WHICH HAS

BEEN DEVELOPED

WE MUST RECOGNIZE “THE BALANCING ACT” INHERENT IN

CLASSYFYING.

THE CLASSICAL WAY HOW TO REPRESENT THE REAL WORLD :

MAP

STATISTICAL REPORT

LEGEND

1a Forest

2b Agriculture

3c Urban

4d Rock

5e Water

6f ...........

7g............

Legend CLASSES

are a generalization

of the reality explicated

(formalization of meaning)

using a narrative text

(class definition).

13

•It should be recognized that no classification system can reflect the

social and/or the natural world fully accurately

•Classification (categorization) is an highly dynamic process related

to geographic areas, time and culture

•There are and it will be always multiple ways to categorize (segment) the

real world phenomena, all of them have the same legitimacy

AN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Single ontology methods to formalize a class meaning is proved

ineffective to fully describe the thematic content of a feature.

It is (usually) source of vagueness and ambiguity.

It is not functional in a modern data management.

•Different terms used for same concepts (Synonymy).

•Different understanding of homonymous concepts (Polysemy)

(e.g. the various meanings of the term ‘forest’ for forestry, env. mod. etc.)

•Different understandings of the relations among common concepts.

•Common instances across databases assigned to different

concepts in different ontologies.

SEMANTIC PROBLEMS ARE CONSTANT PART OF THE HUMAN

SOCIAL RELATIONS (AND HUMAN LANGUAGE )

COFFEE

AMERICAN

ESPRESSO

CAFFELLATTE

CAPPUCCINO

LUNGO

CORRETTO CON GOCCIA

MACCHIATO

IN VETRO IN CUP CALDO (WARM)

FREDDO (COLD)

RISTRETTO

•Categories (classes) are usually limited in number.

This forces the map producer to drastically generalize reality.

•Class definitions are imprecise, ambiguous or absent. The build up of the definition in the form of a narrative text is unsystematic (many diagnostic criteria

forming the system are not always applied in a consistent way) and in any case do not always reflect

the full extent of the information.

•Generalization into categories where meaning is very often limited to the class

name, or has only an unclear class description, implies rigidity in the transfer

of information from the data producer to the end user community. End users have limited if any possibility to interact with the data, and must therefore accept them ‘as is’.

The representation of the granularity of the aspects summarizing a specific feature of the real world is

drastically reduced or lost.

•Often some vagueness in the class definition is artificially included by the map

producer to hide some ‘technical anomalies’

SHORTHCOMINGS of CURRENT “SINGLE ONTOLOGY” SYSTEMS

STANDARDIZATION ISSUE A FIRST AND RECOGNISABLE

LIMITOF THE ACTUAL CLASSICAL APPROACH

•Mapping (and/or conceptual representation of a particular geographic feature)

is a local activity, so at one level it can be understood why there is the tendency

to establish unique classification systems to fit local conditions

•Any land surface is at a certain level (or scale of observation) heterogeneous

and the standards to represent and generalize those land characteristics

are about as diverse as the land itself

•In geographic information truth as a distinct, incontrovertible and correct

fact cannot exist

HARMONIZATION AND SEMANTIC

INTEROPERABILITY OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA SETS

A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Many classifications of geographic phenomena are often a black box to anyone

outside the immediate group involved in the classification process.

In the worst cases LU/LC information are treated as “data” by many users who don’t

fully understand its inherent relativism

PREMISES

L.C. Semantic and Semantic Interoperability between L.C. Systems

the core of the problem

Despite the great need of data harmonization there is a

huge problem of compatibility and comparability

between land cover (LC) products.

PREMISES

Harmonization should be the process whereby

differences among existing definitions of land

characterization are identified, clarified and

inconsistencies reduced. However, this is not the

actual case, where current maps exist mostly as

independent and incompatible data sets.

Causes of data bases heterogeneities

different coverage (level of

detail) due to different scope –

user needs

different relations due to

different classification

perspectives

different semantics due to

different conceptualizations

1 2

0

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

11 4

5 6

0

28 7

9

10

1 2

0

3 4

5 6

0

211 2

0

1 2

0

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

11 4

5 6

0

28 7

9

10

3 4

5 6

0

21

3 4

5 6

0

21

11 4

5 6

0

28 7

9

10

11 4

5 6

0

28 7

9

10

FA

O -

LA

ND

CO

VE

R T

OP

IC C

EN

TR

E -

GL

CN

Interoperability Definition

Interoperability is the ability of “systems” to operate in conjunction, on the exchange

and reuse of available resources, …, according to the intended use of their

providers, in order to fulfill the requirements of a specific task (Kavouras and Kokla,

2008)

Basic Points of Interoperability Definition

“systems”: NOT technical systems (e.g., hardware/software or

products), BUT any organized field of human activity (e.g.,

organizations, geospatial databases, infrastructures, etc.).

“according to intended use”: essential that users (humans or

computers) understand geographic information without ambiguity

understanding involves the study of meanings, i.e., semantics.

the semantics of geographic information are described by a

geospatial ontology.

interoperability focus: semantic interoperability between geospatial

ontologies.

SAME EXAMPLES OF SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY

EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT FOREST DEFINITIONS

Global land cover

datasets

Important factors for disagreement:

1. Land cover/forest definitions:

IGBP legend : percent tree cover >60%

GLC2000 legend : percent tree cover >15%

2. Spatial heterogeneities

Comparison of forest classes

History: independent, incompatible datasets

FA

O -

LA

ND

CO

VE

R T

OP

IC C

EN

TR

E -

GL

CN

CHINA 2000-2005

1. Forest (arbor forest, mangrove forest, bamboo forest),

2. Open forest land,

3. Shrub land,

4. Unestablished forest,

5. Nursery land,

7. Other land

6. Forest suitable land,

Classes

SRI LANKA 1992-1999

Classes

1. Lowland rain forest

2. Moist monsoon Forest

3. Dry monsoon Forest

11. Teak

6. Mangroves

7. Riverine dry forest

12. Mahogany

5. Sub Montane forest

9. Conifers

10. Eucalypts

4. Montane forest

8. Sparse and open forest

Classes Classes

NEPAL Jafta 2000

S. KOREA 1999-2006

1. Sal (Shorea

robusta)

2. Tropical Mixed

Hardwood

3. Upper and

Lower Mixed

Hardwood

4. Chir Pine

5. Blue Pine/

Cypress/Yew

6. Fir/ Hemlock/

Spruce/ Cedar

7. Shrub

8. Agri/Grass

10. Water bodies

11. Bare Land

12. Snow 5. Rocky Area

2. Cultivated land on steep slopes

1. Stocked

forest

3. Unstocked forest land

4. Denuded forest land ??

1. Conifers

2. Hardwood

3. Mixedwood

5. Oaks

4. Alpine Conifers

(RSS 1996)

Classes

NEW ZEALAND LCDB 2

Classes

MYANMAR 2000-2005

1. Evergreen Forest

4. Deciduous Dipterocarp Forest

5. Pine forest

6. Hill forest

7. Bamboo Forest

3. DUMD (Dry Upper Mixed Deciduous) Forest

2. MUMD (Moist Upper Mixed Deciduous) Forest

14. Shifting Cultivation

8. Mangrove Forest

9. Evergreen Forest / Open

10. MUMD Forest / Open

11. Dry Forest

12. Mangrove Open

13. Scrub Land

Classes

INDIA 2003

1. Very Dense

Forest (VDF)

2. Moderately

Dense Forest

(MDF) ??

3. Open

Forest(OF)

4. Scrub

Classes

MONGOLIA 1975-2005

1. natural forest

2. planted forest

3. shrubs

4. forest area damaged by fire

5. forest damaged by insects

6. logging area

7. open forest

8. area for reforestation

9. non forest area

50 Fernland 51 Gorse / Broom 52 Manuka and or

Kanuka 53 Matagouri 55 Sub Alpine

Shrubland 56 Mixed Exotic

Shrubland 57 Grey Scrub

54 Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods 68 Deciduous Hardwoods 69 Indigenous Forest

15 Alpine Grass-/Herbfield

41 Low Producing Grassland

43 Tall Tussock Grassland

70 Mangrove

...........follow

SAME EXAMPLE OF FOREST CLASSIFICATIONS IN ASIA

EXAMPLES OF LAND COVER CLASSIFICATONS IN SOUTH ASIA

STANDARDIZATION OF A COMMON SET OF CLASSES

TO OVERPASS THE PROBLEM OF SEMANTIC

INTEROPERABILITY?

A WRONG PARADIGM

LAND COVER AS ANY OTHER GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A

“ CONTINUUM”

A CLASS OR CATEGORY IS A “PARTITION”OF THIS CONTINUUM. ANY PARTITION

(CATEGORY) AS IS OWN LEGITIMACY

COVER % 1 100

COSTA RICA (70-100%) US (30-100%)

FAO (10-100%)

A NEW APPROACH TO SEMANTIC HARMONIZATION:

•IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ( AND ALSO NAIVE) TO THINK TO STANDARDIZE

CLASSES

•INSTEAD OF TO TRY TO STANDARDIZE CATEGORIES (CLASSES) IT IS MORE

IMPORTANT AND EFFICIENT TO STANDARDIZE THE WAY HOW A SPECIFIC

CATEGORY HAS BEEN CREATED

•THIS IMPLIES THE FORMALIZATION OF THE RULES AND CONDITIONS

ON HOW A SPECIFIC CLASS HAS BEEN CONCEPTUALIZED

•A COMMON PROTOCOL OF RULES TO DESCRIBE THE “ REAL WORLD”

WILL GUARANTEE COMPLETE FLEXIBILITY IN THE CREATION OF

SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AND IN THE SAME TIME WILL ASSUIRE

SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THEM

•THE SYSTEM SHOULD ALSO ASSURE MIGRATION FROM

THE HUMAN LANGUAGE TO MACHINE REPRESENTATION OF THE RULES

AND CONDITIONS WITH WHICH THE “FORMALIZATION OF THE MEANING”

OF A GIVEN CATEGORYHAS BEEN CREATED

Real world

FOREST

Thematic

chategory

As part of a

applied legend

Agriculture

Forest

Wetland

Urban

..........

..........

Legend 2

Legend 3

Database

by chategories

OTHER LEGENDS DIFF: FROM

THE ORIGINAL MUST RELATE

TO THE ORIGINAL TO APPROACH

THE DATABASE

ONTOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

SUBJECTIVITY OF TRANSLATION

TOO LARGE CONCEPTUAL JUMP

SOURCE OF AMBIGUITIES,

VAGUENES AND INCONSISTENCES

From the real world to the construction of a database

From the real world to the construction of a database

BEFORE TO CREATE CONCEPTUAL

CATEGORIES THE REAL WORLD

BE REPRESENTED IN A MORE

SIMPLE AND EFFICIENT WAY

Real world Database

by objects Objects

FOREST

WOODLAND

SAVANNA

USER DEFINED

CATEGORIES

EN

D U

SE

RS

THE LCML/LCCS CONCEPT

•LCCS adheres to the concept that it is deemed as more important to standardize

the attribute terminology rather than the final categories.

•LCCS works by creating a set of standard diagnostic attributes to create

or describe different LC classes.

•They act as standardized building blocks and can be combined to

describe the more complex semantics of each LC class in any separate application

ontology (classification system)

•The emphasis is no longer on the class name but on the set of clearly quantifiable

attributes

IT IS FROM 1998 THAT FAO STARTED TO DEVELOP THIS NEW STRATEGY

CREATING DIFERENT VERSIONS OF LCCS (Land Cover Classification System)

From LCCS v.2 to LCML

•Complete the passage from a “classification system” to a reference

“Meta-Language”.

•Develop a full “Object oriented” syntax to support a (possible use of)

relational data base

•Extend the descriptive power of the system

•Instantiate the “formalization of the meaning” using a “standard” modelling

language

•Rationalize the “language elements”.

•Improve the capacity of the system to be extended with a large series of

“application related” attributes


MAJOR CHARACTERISTCS OF LCML (LCCS v3)

Rigorous categorization of the language elements

•BASIC OBJECTS purely based on physionomic aspect

BIOTIC ABIOTIC

•PROPERTIES of basic objects (further physionomic characterization

of basic objects as height, cover etc)

•BASIC OBJECTS CHARACTERISTICS (descriptive elements of

the basic objects not directly related to its physiognomic

characterization as veg artificiality etc.)

•COVER CLASS CHARATERISTICS (descriptive elements of the land

cover class as a whole as climate, landform etc.)


LCML is a sophisticated Land Cover description engine

that can be part of many different FDM

Development of LCML has focus on four main aspects:

•Very high descriptive power of different Land Cover situations

•Rigorous syntax ( categorization of language elements and

rules to relate them)

•Clear classification criteria

•Avoiding as much as possible use of complex categories

(definitions) and constrains for basic elements

Majority of the elements (and their definition) are derived from

the previous versions of LCCS. They are more than 10 years in

use and have gained a considerable acceptance world wide


MAJOR CHARACTERISTCS OF LCML (LCCS v3)

Simple classification criteria

Fundamental idea: a predefined set of basic elements

(BIOTIC and ABIOTIC) and their properties enriched in their

semantic significance with “element” and “ class”

characteristics can be arranged in different types of vertical

and horizontal patterns to describe a wide variety of

distinctive and detailed land cover situations



{ Two LCML_Element(s)

in one LC_Stratum

must be of the same

class unless there is an

LCML_SequentialTemp

oralRelationship

between them or unless

they are of type

LCML_Gramineae or

LCML_Forbs.

{An LCML_Stratum

may have an

LCML_VerticalRelations

hip only with all the

next LCML_Stratum in

the ordered list of

LCML_Stratum that

belongs to the same

LCML_LandCoverClass}

LCML_SequentialTemporalRelationshipTypes

+ sequentialSameYear

+ sequentialOtherYear

(from LCML_LandCoverClassStructure)

<<enumeration>>

{An LCML_Element may have an

LCML_SequentialTemporalRelationship only

with the next LCML_Element in the ordered

list of LCML_Elements which belong to the

same LCML_Stratum}

LCML_Element(from LCML_LandCoverClassStructure)

0..10..1

LCML_SequentialTemporalRelationship

LCML_SequentialTemporalRelationship

- length[0..1] : LCML_PermittedPositiveRealValues

- type[1] : LCML_SequentialTemporalRelationshipTypes

LCML_Stratum(from LCML_LandCoverClassStructure)

0..10..1

LCML_VerticalRelationship

0..* +layerElement0..*

+layer

layered

LCML_HorizPattern

+ PatternType : CharacterString

+ PatternCoverPercentage : LC_PermittedPercentageValues

+ PatternOccurrence : LC_PermittedPercentageValues

(from LCML_LandCoverClassStructure)

1..*+composedOf

1..* {ordered}

+composedBy

composition

LCML_LandCoverClassificationSystem

LCML_ClassCharacteristic(from LCML_ClassCharacteristics)

LCML_LandCoverClass(from LCML_LandCoverClassStructure)

1..*

+composedBy

+composedOf1..*classComposition

1..*+systemClasses 1..*

+systemsystemCollection

+describe+describedBy

Characteristic

Core Structure of the LCML meta model – allowing multiple

stratification and horizontal pattern description.

LCML_MetaLanguage

ClassificationSystem

ApplicationSchema

ApplicationSchemaInstance

<<Instantiates>>

<<Instantiates>>

<<Instantiates>>

Meta Meta Meta Model showing the

Instantialion relationships between the

LCML MetaLanguage and a

Classification Ssytem and an

Application Schema

Land Cover Meta Language describing the common sub

elements and their relations that may be combined to

create any Land Cover Classification System. ISO 19144-2

is at this level of the hierarchy.

A specific Land Cover Classification System that

effectively establishes a dictionary of classifiers that may

be used to create a specific "System" (or Feature

Concept Distionary) for use in defining a specific

Application Schema. ISO 19144-1 addresses the

organization of classifiers and their geometric

representation using a Discrete Coverage at this level of

the hierarchy.

An Application Schema, compliant with ISO 19109 Rules

for Application Schema, that defines the specific set of

feature types used in the Feature Catalogue (Legend) for

a Land Cover data set or series of data sets.

A specific set of Land Cover data, compliant with the

Application Schema.


Joint Standards and Registers Both ISO 19144-1 and ISO 19144-2 are joint

standards with the UN and ISO.

This means that the standards and the

registers are joint – the UN may manage

Classification Registers on behalf of ISO and

itself.

The ISO Directives Part 1 Annex H establish rules for establishing a

Registration Authority.

The technical management board designates registration authorities in

connection with International Standards on the proposal of the technical

committee concerned.

Registration authorities should be qualified and internationally

acceptable bodies; ....

Registration authorities should be required to indicate clearly in their

operations that they have been designated by ISO or IEC ...

Registration functions undertaken by the registration authority under the

provisions of the relevant International Standard shall require no

financial contribution from ISO or IEC or their members.


Register in 19144-2 LCML

The purpose of Registration in ISO 19144-2 LCML is different than that of 19144-1.

The LCML contains a set of fixed metalanguage elements that are the basic vocabulary for describing different land cover classification systems. This vocabulary has to be stable in order for descriptions of different land cover classification systems to be comparable.

Changes to the properties of land cover element characteristics and land cover class characteristics as expressed in the metalanguage objects may be done by registration.

This provides a simpler route to extend the descriptive aspects of the metalanguage without changing the basic metalanguage elements. It also permits the characteristics and associated code lists to be extended.


Control Body Each Register requires a

Control Body to manage the submission of elements into the register.

A joint control body, or bodies is/are proposed for the registers required in 19144-1 and 19144-2.

The UN FAO may establish its own registers addressing its own implementation of the standards, just as any nation or other organization may do.

The Organization Responsible

MultipleSubmitters

A few Register Managers

Several Control Bodies

Many Registers

One Registry Manager & Registry for an organization

LCML IS NOT ONLY A SYSTEM TO HARMONIZE

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

BUT AN ADVANCED APPROACH TO FORMALIZE

THE MEANING OF LAND FEATURES


Corine L.C.Level 3

1.1.2 Discontinuous urban fabric

Most of the land is covered by structures, Buildings, roads and artificially surface areas associated

with vegetated areas and bare soil, which occupy discontinuous but significant surfaces. Between

10% and 80% of the land is covered by residential structures.

Land Cover elements (basic objects) NOT STRUCTURED, NOT EXPLICIT (in the data base), SOME TIME VAGUE/INCOMPLETE

Land Cover attributes NOT STRUCTURED, NOT EXPLICIT (in the data base), SOME TIME VAGUE/INCOMPLETE

Land Cover el. cover or polygon occupancy SOME TIME VAGUE, NOT EXPLICIT FOR EACH ELEMENT, SOME VALUE NOT STORED IN THE DATA BASE

Land Cover elements horizontal/vertical relationship, NOT STRUCTURED, NOT EXPLICIT (in the data base), VAGUE/INCOMPLETE

SINGLE ONTOLOGY STILL A GOOD APPROACH TO

REPRESENT GEOGRAFIC FEATURES?

A NEW WAY TO REPRESENT THE COMPLEXITY

OF THE REAL WORLD

A MODEL INSTEAD OF

A CLASS NAME AND TEXT DESCRIPTION


EXAMPLE 1: VEGETATION LAYERING

Broadleaved deciduous trees with two strata of shrubs

.

EL_ClosedBroadleavedDecidousForest

EL_CBLDFStratum1 EL_CBLDFTrees EL_CBLDFTreesHeightRange

+ maxValue: Real = 7.0 {readOnly}

+ minValue: Real = 5.0 {readOnly}

EL_CBLDFTreesCoverRange


+ minValue: Real = 70.0 {readOnly}EL_CBLDFTreesNaturalSeminaturalVegetation

EL_CBLDFTreesBroadLeaf

EL_CBLDFStratum2

EL_CBLDFStratum3 EL_CBLDFScrubs3

EL_CBLDFScrubs2

EL_CBLDFScrubs2NaturalSeminaturalVegetation

EL_CBLDFScrubs3NaturalSeminaturalVegetation

EL_CBLDFScrubs2HeightRange



EL_CBLDFScrubs2CoverRange



EL_CBLDFScrubs3HeightRange



EL_CBLDFScrubs3CoverRange



EL_CBLDFTreesDecidous

+growthFormQuality 1

1

1

1

1

1

11

+growthFormQuality 1

1

+height

1

1

+cover

1

1

+height

1

1

+cover

1

1

+leafPhenology 1

1

111

1

11

+height

11

+cover

1

1

+growthFormQuality1

1

+leafType1

1

Strata 1

Strata 2

Strata 3


EXAMPLE 2: Aquatic and regularly flooded vegetation-Closed

mangroves trees

EL_ClosedMangroveForest

EL_CMFStratum1

EL_CMFStratum2

EL_CMFTreesEL_CMFTreesHeightRange



EL_CMFTreesCoverRange


+ minValue: Real = 70.0 {readOnly}EL_CMFTreesNaturalSeminaturalVegetation

EL_CMFTreesBroadLeafEL_CMFTreesDecidous

EL_CMFWaterBody

EL_CMFWaterBodyDailyVariation

EL_CMFWaterBodyHeightRange



EL_CMFWaterBodySalinity

+ type: LC_WaterSalinityTypes = moderatelySaline {readOnly}

EL_CMFWaterBodyArtificiality

+ type: LC_ArtificialityTypes = natural {readOnly}

1

+growthFormQuality1

1

1

1

11

+leafPhenology 1

1

+leafType 1

1

+cover

1

1

11

+dailyVariation

1

1

+height

1

1

+waterAndAssociatedSurfacesQuality1

1

+waterAndAssociatedSurfacesQuality 1

1

+height

11


EXAMPLE 3: COMPLEX BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC RELATIONSHIP

Building with garden on top with young trees seasonally covered by snow

MOVING FORWARD AN ADVANCED SYSTEM

DO WE REALLY NEED “CATEGORIES” TO CREATE A

MODERN LAND COVER DATA BASE?

burned water stress

FOREST (according to FAO definition)

DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE REAL WORLD ARE GENERALIZED, THE USERS

LOOSE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE REALITY. THE LOST OF INFORMATION

IS IRREVERSIBLE

DO WE REALLY NEED CATEGORIES?

DO WE REALLY NEED CATEGORIES?

•Despite the obvious constraints, categories are useful means whereby

we cope with the “continuous” nature of the real world and its multiplicity

of information.

•Categorization is also a powerful method how we share knowledge.

•Categories/specialized terminology are therefore part of most sciences,

and historically we find ample evidence of specialized terminology,

hierarchical thinking and classifications established within those disciplines.

• THE PROBLEM IS WERE WE POSITION CATEGORIES IN A DATA BASE

AND HOW THEY INTERACT WITH THE POSSIBILITY/CAPABILITY TO

MAXIMIZE THE REPRESENTATION OF THE GRANULARITY OF

INFORMATION OF THE REAL WORLD

Information Technology Division (CIO) Information Systems Architecture Forum

THE OBJECT ORIENTED METHOD TO MAP LAND COVER

ACCORDING TO FAO/GLCN

Real world

(universe of

Discourse acc.

to ISO)

Different methods

to produce a data base

•Predefined list of classes

•Major class groups further

enriched in each polygon

•Land Cover caracterization

using LCML elemens

Data base built up

according to LCML

OBJECTS

Tree

Shrub

Building

Etc.....

AGGREGATION

OF THE OBJECTS

ACCORDING TO

DIFFERENT

ONTOLOGIES

CORINNE

ANDERSON

NATIONAL

CLASSIFIC.

Analysis by rules

LCML (LAND COVER

META LANGUAGE)

ONTOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP

OF THE OBJECTS

MAP PRODUCERS DOMAIN END USER DOMAIN

LCCS 3


X 1

X 2

Y 1

Y

2 X 1

X 2

F 1

Z

2 X 1

X 2

Y 1

Y

2 X 1

X 2

F 1

Z

2 X 1

X 2

Y 1

Y

2 X 1

X 2

F 1

Z

2

X 1

X 2

Y 1

Y

2 X 1

X 2

F 1

Z

2

DIN

AM

IC D

ATA

BA

SE

RE

PR

ES

EN

TE

D

BY

OB

JE

CT

S N

OT

CA

TE

GO

RIE

S

APPLICATION 1

Carbon flux

estination

APPLICATION 2

Agriculture

assessment

APPLICATION 3

Rangeland

Assessment

APPLICATION 3

Ecosystem

accounting

Capture granularity of real world information

with LCML semantic protocol

THE LCML PROVIDERS COMUNITY ------ GLOBAL END USERS COMUNITY

Use the structured amount of information to built ad hoc

categories to develop specific application

TH

E G

RA

NU

LA

RIT

Y O

F I

NF

OR

MA

TIO

N O

F T

HE

RE

AL

WO

RLD

RE

PR

ES

EN

TIN

G T

HE

RE

AL I

TY

WIT

H L

CM

L

US

E L

CM

L F

LE

XIB

ILIT

Y T

O C

RE

AT

E S

PE

CIF

IC

U

SE

R D

EF

INE

D C

AT

EG

OR

IES

USER 1

USER 2

USER 3

USER n…

CATEGORIES

CATEGORIES

CATEGORIES

CATEGORIES

LC

ML S

EM

AN

TIC

EL

EM

EN

TS

BA

SIC

O

BJE

CT

S, P

RO

PE

RT

IES

a

nd

CH

AR

AC

TE

RIS

TIC

S

THE LCML FLUX OF INFORMATION


FINAL COMMENTS

•To solve the problem of a modern Land Features characterization

and semantic inter-operability we need a change of perspective •Move away from the vagueness of class names/description

•Up to date “formalization of the meaning”

•Semantic interoperability is a responsibility of “data producers”

•It is not an option is a basic requirement of any geographic

data set


FINAL COMMENTS

Be potentially able to converse with other systems. This inherent harmonization

property should not relay (only) on expert judgment but the harmonization

process should be automatized as much as possible.

Recognize the balancing act inherent in classifying (Bowker and Star, 1999).

A classification will never be able to fully represent all the aspects of the real world,

therefore it must be clear it reflect (just) a specific scope for which has been

developed.

Render voice retrieval (Bowker and Star, 1999) by allowing users to detail

and compare classes using a detailed class description (systematically organized

with a list of explicit measurable diagnostic attributes), thus avoiding the risk of

systems being impermeable to the end users.

An Ideal Classification System should:


FINAL COMMENTS

Standardization process should focus on the rules and conditions

how a feature is conceptualized rather than acting just on the class name.

The “formalization of the meaning” of the system and its

components should be formulated with the most modern methods of

modellization.

A modern classification should not be considered an isolated structure

but more a functional component of a rather complete system for data

management.


FINAL COMMENTS

Does not matter how big is the distance (10 or 100000 miles), to arrive

You always need to start from the first step (Chinese proverb).

Thank you.

Documents

Information Systems Architecture Forum Enterprise Service Bus - WordPress… · 2015-02-07 · Workshop on Land Cover Classification (FAO LCML/LCCS v.3) Paramarivo ... Fire monitoring