Spatially clustered associations in health related geospatial data

Overlaying maps using a desktop GIS is often the first step of a multivariate spatial analysis. The potential of this operation has increased considerably as data sources an dWeb services to manipulate them are becoming widely available via the Internet. Standards from the OGC enable such geospatial ‘mashups’ to be seamless and user driven, involving discovery of thematic data. The user is naturally inclined to look for spatial clusters and ‘correlation’ of outcomes. Using classical cluster detection scan methods to identify multivariate associations can be problematic in this context, because of a lack of control on or knowledge about background populations. For public health and epidemiological mapping, this limiting factor can be critical but often the focus is on spatial identification of risk factors associated with health or clinical status. In this article we point out that this association itself can ensure some control on underlying populations, and develop an exploratory scan statistic framework for multivariate associations. Inference using statistical map methodologies can be used to test the clustered associations. The approach is illustrated with a hypothetical data example and an epidemiological study on community MRSA. Scenarios of potential use for online mashups are introduced but full implementation is left for further research.

Geospatial data quality indicators

Indicators which summarise the characteristics of spatiotemporal data coverages significantly simplify quality evaluation, decision making and justification processes by providing a number of quality cues that are easy to manage and avoiding information overflow. Criteria which are commonly prioritised in evaluating spatial data quality and assessing a dataset’s fitness for use include lineage, completeness, logical consistency, positional accuracy, temporal and attribute accuracy. However, user requirements may go far beyond these broadlyaccepted spatial quality metrics, to incorporate specific and complex factors which are less easily measured. This paper discusses the results of a study of high level user requirements in geospatial data selection and data quality evaluation. It reports on the geospatial data quality indicators which were identified as user priorities, and which can potentially be standardised to enable intercomparison of datasets against user requirements. We briefly describe the implications for tools and standards to support the communication and intercomparison of data quality, and the ways in which these can contribute to the generation of a GEO label.

GEO Label:user and producer perspectives on a label for geospatial data

One of the aims of the Science and Technology Committee (STC) of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) was to establish a GEO Label- a label to certify geospatial datasets and their quality. As proposed, the GEO Label will be used as a value indicator for geospatial data and datasets accessible through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). It is suggested that the development of such a label will significantly improve user recognition of the quality of geospatial datasets and that its use will help promote trust in datasets that carry the established GEO Label. Furthermore, the GEO Label is seen as an incentive to data providers. At the moment GEOSS contains a large amount of data and is constantly growing. Taking this into account, a GEO Label could assist in searching by providing users with visual cues of dataset quality and possibly relevance; a GEO Label could effectively stand as a decision support mechanism for dataset selection. Currently our project - GeoViQua, - together with EGIDA and ID-03 is undertaking research to define and evaluate the concept of a GEO Label. The development and evaluation process will be carried out in three phases. In phase I we have conducted an online survey (GEO Label Questionnaire) to identify the initial user and producer views on a GEO Label or its potential role. In phase II we will conduct a further study presenting some GEO Label examples that will be based on Phase I. We will elicit feedback on these examples under controlled conditions. In phase III we will create physical prototypes which will be used in a human subject study. The most successful prototypes will then be put forward as potential GEO Label options. At the moment we are in phase I, where we developed an online questionnaire to collect the initial GEO Label requirements and to identify the role that a GEO Label should serve from the user and producer standpoint. The GEO Label Questionnaire consists of generic questions to identify whether users and producers believe a GEO Label is relevant to geospatial data; whether they want a single "one-for-all" label or separate labels that will serve a particular role; the function that would be most relevant for a GEO Label to carry; and the functionality that users and producers would like to see from common rating and review systems they use. To distribute the questionnaire, relevant user and expert groups were contacted at meetings or by email. At this stage we successfully collected over 80 valid responses from geospatial data users and producers. This communication will provide a comprehensive analysis of the survey results, indicating to what extent the users surveyed in Phase I value a GEO Label, and suggesting in what directions a GEO Label may develop. Potential GEO Label examples based on the results of the survey will be presented for use in Phase II.

Visualisation of quality information for geospatial and remote sensing data:providing the GIS community with the decision support tools for geospatial dataset quality evaluation

The evaluation of geospatial data quality and trustworthiness presents a major challenge to geospatial data users when making a dataset selection decision. The research presented here therefore focused on defining and developing a GEO label – a decision support mechanism to assist data users in efficient and effective geospatial dataset selection on the basis of quality, trustworthiness and fitness for use. This thesis thus presents six phases of research and development conducted to: (a) identify the informational aspects upon which users rely when assessing geospatial dataset quality and trustworthiness; (2) elicit initial user views on the GEO label role in supporting dataset comparison and selection; (3) evaluate prototype label visualisations; (4) develop a Web service to support GEO label generation; (5) develop a prototype GEO label-based dataset discovery and intercomparison decision support tool; and (6) evaluate the prototype tool in a controlled human-subject study. The results of the studies revealed, and subsequently confirmed, eight geospatial data informational aspects that were considered important by users when evaluating geospatial dataset quality and trustworthiness, namely: producer information, producer comments, lineage information, compliance with standards, quantitative quality information, user feedback, expert reviews, and citations information. Following an iterative user-centred design (UCD) approach, it was established that the GEO label should visually summarise availability and allow interrogation of these key informational aspects. A Web service was developed to support generation of dynamic GEO label representations and integrated into a number of real-world GIS applications. The service was also utilised in the development of the GEO LINC tool – a GEO label-based dataset discovery and intercomparison decision support tool. The results of the final evaluation study indicated that (a) the GEO label effectively communicates the availability of dataset quality and trustworthiness information and (b) GEO LINC successfully facilitates ‘at a glance’ dataset intercomparison and fitness for purpose-based dataset selection.

Data driven graphical applications:a fluid approach

The inclusion of high-level scripting functionality in state-of-the-art rendering APIs indicates a movement toward data-driven methodologies for structuring next generation rendering pipelines. A similar theme can be seen in the use of composition languages to deploy component software using selection and configuration of collaborating component implementations. In this paper we introduce the Fluid framework, which places particular emphasis on the use of high-level data manipulations in order to develop component based software that is flexible, extensible, and expressive. We introduce a data-driven, object oriented programming methodology to component based software development, and demonstrate how a rendering system with a similar focus on abstract manipulations can be incorporated, in order to develop a visualization application for geospatial data. In particular we describe a novel SAS script integration layer that provides access to vertex and fragment programs, producing a very controllable, responsive rendering system. The proposed system is very similar to developments speculatively planned for DirectX 10, but uses open standards and has cross platform applicability. © The Eurographics Association 2007.

GEO Label – quality information interrogation tool for geospatial datasets:towards effective visualization of quality metadata

Although the importance of dataset fitness-for-use evaluation and intercomparison is widely recognised within the GIS community, no practical tools have yet been developed to support such interrogation. GeoViQua aims to develop a GEO label which will visually summarise and allow interrogation of key informational aspects of geospatial datasets upon which users rely when selecting datasets for use. The proposed GEO label will be integrated in the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) and will be used as a value and trust indicator for datasets accessible through the GEO Portal. As envisioned, the GEO label will act as a decision support mechanism for dataset selection and thereby hopefully improve user recognition of the quality of datasets. To date we have conducted 3 user studies to (1) identify the informational aspects of geospatial datasets upon which users rely when assessing dataset quality and trustworthiness, (2) elicit initial user views on a GEO label and its potential role and (3), evaluate prototype label visualisations. Our first study revealed that, when evaluating quality of data, users consider 8 facets: dataset producer information; producer comments on dataset quality; dataset compliance with international standards; community advice; dataset ratings; links to dataset citations; expert value judgements; and quantitative quality information. Our second study confirmed the relevance of these facets in terms of the community-perceived function that a GEO label should fulfil: users and producers of geospatial data supported the concept of a GEO label that provides a drill-down interrogation facility covering all 8 informational aspects. Consequently, we developed three prototype label visualisations and evaluated their comparative effectiveness and user preference via a third user study to arrive at a final graphical GEO label representation. When integrated in the GEOSS, an individual GEO label will be provided for each dataset in the GEOSS clearinghouse (or other data portals and clearinghouses) based on its available quality information. Producer and feedback metadata documents are being used to dynamically assess information availability and generate the GEO labels. The producer metadata document can either be a standard ISO compliant metadata record supplied with the dataset, or an extended version of a GeoViQua-derived metadata record, and is used to assess the availability of a producer profile, producer comments, compliance with standards, citations and quantitative quality information. GeoViQua is also currently developing a feedback server to collect and encode (as metadata records) user and producer feedback on datasets; these metadata records will be used to assess the availability of user comments, ratings, expert reviews and user-supplied citations for a dataset. The GEO label will provide drill-down functionality which will allow a user to navigate to a GEO label page offering detailed quality information for its associated dataset. At this stage, we are developing the GEO label service that will be used to provide GEO labels on demand based on supplied metadata records. In this presentation, we will provide a comprehensive overview of the GEO label development process, with specific emphasis on the GEO label implementation and integration into the GEOSS.

Probabilistic uncertainty in an interoperable framework

This thesis provides an interoperable language for quantifying uncertainty using probability theory. A general introduction to interoperability and uncertainty is given, with particular emphasis on the geospatial domain. Existing interoperable standards used within the geospatial sciences are reviewed, including Geography Markup Language (GML), Observations and Measurements (O&M) and the Web Processing Service (WPS) specifications. The importance of uncertainty in geospatial data is identified and probability theory is examined as a mechanism for quantifying these uncertainties. The Uncertainty Markup Language (UncertML) is presented as a solution to the lack of an interoperable standard for quantifying uncertainty. UncertML is capable of describing uncertainty using statistics, probability distributions or a series of realisations. The capabilities of UncertML are demonstrated through a series of XML examples. This thesis then provides a series of example use cases where UncertML is integrated with existing standards in a variety of applications. The Sensor Observation Service - a service for querying and retrieving sensor-observed data - is extended to provide a standardised method for quantifying the inherent uncertainties in sensor observations. The INTAMAP project demonstrates how UncertML can be used to aid uncertainty propagation using a WPS by allowing UncertML as input and output data. The flexibility of UncertML is demonstrated with an extension to the GML geometry schemas to allow positional uncertainty to be quantified. Further applications and developments of UncertML are discussed.

UncertML: an XML schema for exchanging uncertainty

Authors from Burrough (1992) to Heuvelink et al. (2007) have highlighted the importance of GIS frameworks which can handle incomplete knowledge in data inputs, in decision rules and in the geometries and attributes modelled. It is particularly important for this uncertainty to be characterised and quantified when GI data is used for spatial decision making. Despite a substantial and valuable literature on means of representing and encoding uncertainty and its propagation in GI (e.g.,Hunter and Goodchild 1993; Duckham et al. 2001; Couclelis 2003), no framework yet exists to describe and communicate uncertainty in an interoperable way. This limits the usability of Internet resources of geospatial data, which are ever-increasing, based on specifications that provide frameworks for the ‘GeoWeb’ (Botts and Robin 2007; Cox 2006). In this paper we present UncertML, an XML schema which provides a framework for describing uncertainty as it propagates through many applications, including online risk management chains. This uncertainty description ranges from simple summary statistics (e.g., mean and variance) to complex representations such as parametric, multivariate distributions at each point of a regular grid. The philosophy adopted in UncertML is that all data values are inherently uncertain, (i.e., they are random variables, rather than values with defined quality metadata).

Rubric-Q:adding quality-related elements to the GEOSS clearinghouse datasets

Geospatial data have become a crucial input for the scientific community for understanding the environment and developing environmental management policies. The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) Clearinghouse is a catalogue and search engine that provides access to the Earth Observation metadata. However, metadata are often not easily understood by users, especially when presented in ISO XML encoding. Data quality included in the metadata is basic for users to select datasets suitable for them. This work aims to help users to understand the quality information held in metadata records and to provide the results to geospatial users in an understandable and comparable way. Thus, we have developed an enhanced tool (Rubric-Q) for visually assessing the metadata quality information and quantifying the degree of metadata population. Rubric-Q is an extension of a previous NOAA Rubric tool used as a metadata training and improvement instrument. The paper also presents a thorough assessment of the quality information by applying the Rubric-Q to all dataset metadata records available in the GEOSS Clearinghouse. The results reveal that just 8.7% of the datasets have some quality element described in the metadata, 63.4% have some lineage element documented, and merely 1.2% has some usage element described. © 2013 IEEE.

Handling and communicating uncertainty in chained geospatial web services

Recent developments in service-oriented and distributed computing have created exciting opportunities for the integration of models in service chains to create the Model Web. This offers the potential for orchestrating web data and processing services, in complex chains; a flexible approach which exploits the increased access to products and tools, and the scalability offered by the Web. However, the uncertainty inherent in data and models must be quantified and communicated in an interoperable way, in order for its effects to be effectively assessed as errors propagate through complex automated model chains. We describe a proposed set of tools for handling, characterizing and communicating uncertainty in this context, and show how they can be used to 'uncertainty- enable' Web Services in a model chain. An example implementation is presented, which combines environmental and publicly-contributed data to produce estimates of sea-level air pressure, with estimates of uncertainty which incorporate the effects of model approximation as well as the uncertainty inherent in the observational and derived data.

Interactions between landcover pattern and geospatial processing methods:effects on landscape metrics and classification accuracy

Remote sensing data is routinely used in ecology to investigate the relationship between landscape pattern as characterised by land use and land cover maps, and ecological processes. Multiple factors related to the representation of geographic phenomenon have been shown to affect characterisation of landscape pattern resulting in spatial uncertainty. This study investigated the effect of the interaction between landscape spatial pattern and geospatial processing methods statistically; unlike most papers which consider the effect of each factor in isolation only. This is important since data used to calculate landscape metrics typically undergo a series of data abstraction processing tasks and are rarely performed in isolation. The geospatial processing methods tested were the aggregation method and the choice of pixel size used to aggregate data. These were compared to two components of landscape pattern, spatial heterogeneity and the proportion of landcover class area. The interactions and their effect on the final landcover map were described using landscape metrics to measure landscape pattern and classification accuracy (response variables). All landscape metrics and classification accuracy were shown to be affected by both landscape pattern and by processing methods. Large variability in the response of those variables and interactions between the explanatory variables were observed. However, even though interactions occurred, this only affected the magnitude of the difference in landscape metric values. Thus, provided that the same processing methods are used, landscapes should retain their ranking when their landscape metrics are compared. For example, highly fragmented landscapes will always have larger values for the landscape metric "number of patches" than less fragmented landscapes. But the magnitude of difference between the landscapes may change and therefore absolute values of landscape metrics may need to be interpreted with caution. The explanatory variables which had the largest effects were spatial heterogeneity and pixel size. These explanatory variables tended to result in large main effects and large interactions. The high variability in the response variables and the interaction of the explanatory variables indicate it would be difficult to make generalisations about the impact of processing on landscape pattern as only two processing methods were tested and it is likely that untested processing methods will potentially result in even greater spatial uncertainty. © 2013 Elsevier B.V.