=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2728/paper3
|storemode=property
|title=A Spatial Relation Ontology for Deep-Water Depositional System Description in Geology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2728/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2728
|authors=Fernando Cicconeto,Lucas Valadares Vieira,Mara Abel,Renata dos Santos Alvarenga,Joel Luis Carbonera
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ontobras/CicconetoVAAC20
}}
==A Spatial Relation Ontology for Deep-Water Depositional System Description in Geology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2728/paper3.pdf
A spatial relation ontology for deep-water depositional system
description in Geology
Fernando Cicconeto1 , Lucas Valadares Vieira2 , Mara Abel1 ,
Renata dos Santos Alvarenga3 , Joel Luis Carbonera1
1
Instituto de Informática – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Porto Alegre – RS – Brazil
2
CENPES – Petrobras
Rio de Janeiro – RJ – Brazil
3
Instituto de Geociências – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Porto Alegre – RS – Brazil
{fcicconeto,marabel,rsakuchle,jlcarbonera}@inf.ufrgs.br,
lucasvaladares@petrobras.com.br
Abstract. In the construction of geological models, it is crucial to specify the
spatial relations between the represented entities, which support the understand-
ing of the 3D distribution of the rock bodies. In this paper, we propose an on-
tological model, based on the GeoCore ontology and the Basic Formal Ontol-
ogy (BFO), which defines a set of spatial relations between geological objects,
amounts of earth materials, sites, boundaries, and other geological entities. We
discuss a modeling case study of a deep-water channel-levee occurrence of the
Karoo basin data from South Africa. The result of this work is an ontology that
supports software applications in the determination of the physically possible
spatial distribution of reservoir geological bodies.
1. Introduction
In geological data interpretation, experts identify geological entities in the raw data and
specify relations between them [Garcia et al. 2020]. Spatial relations are particularly de-
cisive in geological reasoning because they support the representation of the 3D distribu-
tion of the rock bodies and, hence, the interpretation of the processes that generated these
entities. For example, when a sedimentary rock layer is placed above an adjacent layer
in a depositional sequence, the geologist infers that the former is younger than the later.
In this context, it would be helpful to have a common terminology and criteria to classify
and instantiate qualitative spatial relations on geological entities.
In this paper, we review a small collection of ontological models that define spatial
relations. These ontologies were designed for other domains where the spatial distribu-
tion of objects is relevant. Then, we select a set of spatial relations that are useful for
describing the spatial distribution of geological entities. With these relations, we build a
new ontology of geological spatial relations, which modelers can use in many geological
descriptions of several sub-domains. The geological entities that we relate are defined in
the GeoCore ontology [Garcia et al. 2020]: a core ontology designed to specify a general
set of concepts in the Geology domain, such as Geological Object, Earth Material, Geo-
logical Boundary, and others. We use the GeoCore ontology as the base ontology for our
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
work. GeoCore, in its turn, uses the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) [Arp et al. 2015] as a
foundational ontology. We ground our spatial relation definitions in these two ontologies.
With the geological spatial relations defined, we describe a case study on a subset
of the Karoo basin’s geological data described in [Hodgson et al. 2011]. In this study, we
instantiate the rock bodies as Geological Objects of GeoCore ontology and spatially relate
the instances according to the observations. The result shows that the ontology allows an
expressive and formal description of spatial relations in the Geology domain.
This work is structured as follows. In Section 2, we examine some works that
define spatial relations. In Section 3, we introduce the GeoCore ontology. In Section 4,
we review the ontological notions of relations that we use in this work. In Section 5, we
describe the geological spatial relations ontology. In Section 6, we describe the case study
made using the Karoo basin data subset. In Section 7, we conclude this paper and present
future work ideas.
2. Spatial relation ontologies
The work of [Hudelot 2005] proposes a set of ontologies for semantic image interpreta-
tion. One of these ontologies describes the spatial relations between objects. It defines
three main categories: topological relations, orientation relations, and distance relations
(see Figure 1 for a complete view of the relations taxonomy). For topological relations,
the ontology imports the spatial relation concepts from RCC-5 (Region Connection Cal-
culus) and RCC-8 theories [Clarke 1981, Cohn and Hazarika 2001]. Both theories define
foundational topological relations based on connection relations, in that two objects are
connected if they share at least a point. Table 1 presents the definitions of these topo-
logical relations. The orientation relations are defined as proposed by [Freeman 1975],
who described four primitive relations: Left of, Right of, Above, and Below. The relations
In Front of and Behind are also commonly used; nevertheless, the authors do not define
them because their work deals with two-dimensional image interpretation. These rela-
tions express where an object is located relative to another based on an assumed frame
of reference, which can be an external coordinate system, the observer, or an object. The
ontology also defines four distance relations: Very Close, Close, Far, and Very Far. These
relations express the distance of an object relative to another. They depend not only on the
absolute positions of both objects but also on their relative sizes, shapes, and the assumed
frame of reference. In these relations, the frame of reference can be an external spatial
arrangement, the observer, or one aspect of the objects (e.g., their sizes).
[Cohn and Renz 2008] review an extensive set of notions for qualitative spatial
representation and reasoning, focusing on symbolic and qualitative descriptions. Their
work addresses and integrates many different aspects of spatial representation. The
mereotopological aspect integrates mereology (theory of parthood) and topology. This
aspect considers that two spatial entities are connected if the intersection of the spaces
occupied by both is not empty. A spatial entity x is a part of y if and only if whatever
entity connected to x is also connected to y. Examples of mereotopological relations are
overlaps, equals, proper part of, tangential part of, boundary part of, and others. These
relations resemble and also extend the RCC-8 relation set. The authors state that there
are many situations where mereotopological relations alone are insufficient, so they intro-
duce the directional aspect of spatial relations. Direction relations specify the orientation
Spatial Relation
Topological Relation Orientation Relation Distance Relation
Partially Proper Has For Very Very
Discrete Equals Right Of Left Of Above Below Close Far
Overlaps Part Of Proper Part Close Far
Externally Is Tangential Is Non Tangential Has For Tangential Has For Non Tangential
Disconnected
Connected Proper Part Of Proper Part Of Proper Part Proper Part
Figure 1. The taxonomy of spatial relations as proposed by [Hudelot 2005].
Sheet1
RCC-5 RCC-8 Meaning Image
DC(x,y) x is disconnected from y
DR(x,y)
EC(x,y) x externally connected with y
EQ(x,y) EQ(x,y) x is identical to y
PO(x,y) PO(x,y) x partially overlaps y
TPP(x,y) x is a tangential proper part of y
PP(x,y)
NTPP(x,y) x is a non-tangential proper part of y
TPP-i(x,y) x tangentially contains y as a proper part
PP-i(x,y)
NTPP-i(x,y) x non-tangentially contains y as a proper part
Table 1. The topological spatial relations, as defined in RCC (Region Connection
Calculus) theories.
Sheet1
OGC Simple Features Egenhofer RCC-8
equals equal EQ
disjoint disjoint DC
intersects ¬disjoint ¬DC
touches meet EC
within inside ∨ coveredBy NTPP ∨ TPP
contains contains ∨ covers NTPP-i ∨ TPP-i
overlaps overlap PO
Table 2. Equivalence between spatial relations of OGC Simple Features, Egen-
hofer, and RCC-8 relation sets [Battle and Kolas 2012].
of a primary object with respect to a reference object and a frame of reference. One ex-
ample of a frame of reference that can be used is the cardinal reference system (cardinal
directions N, S, W, and E). Other notions that this work introduces are distance and size
(e.g., x is twice as big than y), shape, and mereogeometry, which extends mereology with
geometrical concepts.
The work of [Battle and Kolas 2012] discusses the GeoSPARQL standard, which
aims to address issues of geospatial data representation and access by providing primi-
tives for the formal description of geospatial data and the ability to query and filter on
the relationships between geospatial entities. The specification defines a vocabulary to
represent features, geometries, and their relationships. A feature is an entity in the real
world with some spatial location, while a geometry is a geometric shape used as a rep-
resentation of a feature’s spatial location. Examples of features are parks, airports, mon-
uments, and restaurants. The relationships are topological and are expressed using three
distinct vocabularies: OGC Simple Features1 , Egenhofer [Egenhofer 1994], and RCC-8
[Cohn and Hazarika 2001]. Table 2 presents the equivalence between these different sets
of relations. Their meanings are the same as earlier described in RCC-8.
In [Arp et al. 2015], the authors present the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), a foun-
dational ontology for scientific domains. It is designed to be small and describes a limited
set of concepts that serves as a starting point to model specialized knowledge. Neverthe-
less, the ontology defines three spatial relations for general use: Located In, Location Of,
and Adjacent To. Located In is a relation between two spatial entities, x and y, and a time
t, in which the spatial region occupied by x is a part of the region occupied by y at t. In
the same sense, Location Of is a relation in which the region occupied by x has the region
occupied by y as a part. Adjacent To, in its turn, is a relation that expresses the proximity
of the regions occupied by x and y at t.
3. The GeoCore ontology
In [Garcia et al. 2020], the authors propose the GeoCore ontology, which is a core on-
tology designed to define a set of very general concepts that permeate the whole domain
of geological entities. The authors offered a sound and general-use ontology that helps
to integrate knowledge related to distinct domains of Geology, Geophysics, and Reser-
Page 1
1
https://www.ogc.org/standards/sfa
BFO:
Continuant
BFO: Independent BFO: Specifically BFO: Generically
Continuant Dependent Continuant Dependent Continuant
BFO: Material BFO: Immaterial BFO:
Entity Entity Quality
BFO: BFO: Object BFO: Fiat GeoCore: Earth BFO: Continuant BFO: Relational
BFO: Site
Object Aggregate Object Part Material Fiat Boundary Quality
GeoCore: GeoCore: GeoCore: GeoCore: Geological GeoCore: Geological GeoCore: Geological
Geological Object Rock Earth Fluid Boundary Contact Structure
Figure 2. The hierarchy of the GeoCore concepts [Garcia et al. 2020] that sup-
ports this work.
voir Engineering. It specializes the concepts of Object, Material Entity, Continuant Fiat
Boundary, and others of the BFO ontology [Arp et al. 2015] in terms of geological con-
cepts. The GeoCore ontology aims to cover the main concepts, but it is not a complete
partition, allowing the user to specialize and include dependent continuants such as qual-
ities. Therefore, users can take advantage of the concepts of both GeoCore and BFO to
build specialized ontologies (see Figure 2). OWL (Ontology Web Language) implemen-
tations of GeoCore2 and BFO3 are available in web repositories.
In GeoCore, a Geological Object is a BFO Object generated by some Geological
Process and constituted by some Earth Material. An Earth Material is a BFO Material
Entity of natural matter, either solid, fluid, or unconsolidated, that is also generated by
some Geological Process. Constituted By is a relation between a Geological Object and an
Earth Material in which the object is made of the material (e.g., a well core is constituted
by rock). A Rock is a solid and consolidated Earth Material made of polycrystalline,
monocrystalline or amorphous mineral matter or material of biological origin. An Earth
Fluid is a fluid Earth Material, e.g., water, gas, and oil.
A Geological Boundary is a BFO Continuant Fiat Boundary corresponding to a
physical discontinuity of any nature, located on the external surface of a Geological Ob-
ject. A Geological Contact is a BFO Relational Quality that inheres in two Geological
Objects whose boundaries are adjacent to each other. A Geological Structure is a Gener-
ically Dependent Continuant that describes the internal arrangement of some Geological
Object, i.e., the configuration of and mutual relationships of its different parts (e.g., a ge-
ological fault). GeoCore also defines Geological Process, Geological Time Interval, and
Geological Age, which are not covered by this work.
4. Ontological notions of relations
Before modeling the spatial relations, we shall present the ontological notions of relations
that we use in this work. In this work, a relation is a binary predicate that connects two
entities [Guarino et al. 2009]. Relations have a direction, i.e., if a relation r connects x
to y, it does not necessarily imply that r connects y to x. A relation can connect two
2
https://github.com/BDI-UFRGS/GeoCoreOntology
3
https://github.com/BFO-ontology/BFO
universals, two particulars, or a particular to a universal4 [Arp et al. 2015].
Here, we use the properties of transitivity, symmetry, reflexivity, and inversion,
according to the definitions of [Arp et al. 2015], to support our definitions. We also use
the notion of subrelation as defined in OWL5 . Given two relations r and rs in which rs is
a subrelation of r, if rs relates x to y, it implies that r relates x to y. Subrelations do not
necessarily share the same properties, e.g., r can be transitive while ri is not.
In [Fonseca et al. 2019], the authors analyze relations concerning different types
of truthmakers (entities which relations hold by virtue of them) and propose two or-
thogonal distinctions which we use in this work: internal/external and descriptive/non-
descriptive. An internal relation is definable in terms of their relata’s intrinsic properties,
such as a comparative relation like “John is taller than Mary”. In contrast, an external
relation cannot be defined in terms of their relata’ intrinsic properties. An example of it is
a marriage relation, whose truthmaker is composed of the partners’ mutual commitments
and obligations. A descriptive relation holds by virtue of some aspect of the relata, such
as the aforementioned “John is taller than Mary” example. On the other hand, a non-
descriptive relation holds by virtue of the entities as wholes, e.g., a relation of existential
dependence between a quality and its bearer.
5. A spatial relation ontology for deep-water depositional system description
To build a spatial relation ontology for the Geology domain, we first need to decide what
kinds of spatial relations we intend to model. As reviewed in Section 2, there are several
conceptual categories described in the literature: topological, directional, mereotopologi-
cal, geometrical, etc. To select the intended relations appropriately, we shall define a list
of competency questions that will guide our decisions. Competency questions are queries,
either in a natural or a formal language, that an ontology should be able to represent and
answer [Uschold and Gruninger 1996]. The competency questions for our ontology are:
1. What geological objects are externally connected to this geological object?
2. What geological objects are spatially discrete from and above this geological ob-
ject?
3. What geological objects are proper spatial parts of this geological object?
4. What geological objects are externally connected to and either on the left or on
the right of this geological object?
5. What sites have this geological object as a proper spatial part?
We divide our presentation into two main categories: (1) mereotopological re-
lations, and (2) directional relations. These two categories are sufficient to satisfy the
competency questions above.
All relations described by the ontology connect particulars that instantiate the type
Independent Continuant (BFO). We made this modeling decision because Independent
Continuant is a universal which covers all the types of geological entity that we introduced
4
Here, we assume that a universal is an entity that can have instances, while a particular does not have
any instance [Guarino et al. 2009].
5
In OWL, subrelations are described as subproperties. What here we call “relations”
are represented as “object properties” in OWL. See https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/
REC-owl-features-20040210/#subPropertyOf for more details.
BFO: BFO:
Located inverse of Located
In Of
Spatially Proper Has Proper
Discrete Spatial inverse of Spatial
From Part Of Part
Spatially Externally Spatially Spatially Tangential Non-tangential Has Tangential Has Non-
Disconnected Connected Identical Partially Proper Spatial Proper Spatial Proper Spatial tangential Proper
From With To Overlaps Part Of Part Of Part Spatial Part
inverse of
inverse of
Figure 3. The mereotopological relations defined in this paper.
in Section 3 and intend to relate: Geological Objects such as rock bodies, Sites such
as channels and holes, Geological Boundaries that delimit Geological Objects, and Fiat
Object Parts of rock bodies.
In the sense of [Fonseca et al. 2019] (see Section 4), we consider that all relations
are external and descriptive. “External” denotes that spatial relations occur by virtue of
the positions, sizes, and shapes of the relata concerning each other, and “descriptive”
indicates that these aspects are not the relata themselves.
An OWL implementation of the geological spatial relations ontology can be found
in the web repository6 .
5.1. Mereotopological relations
This set of mereotopological relations (Figure 3) brings the concepts from RCC-5 and
RCC-8 described in Section 2.
Definition 1 (Spatially Discrete From) A symmetric spatial relation between two In-
dependent Continuants (BFO) in which both do not share the same spatial region, either
wholly or partially.
Definition 2 (Spatially Disconnected From) A symmetric subrelation of Spatially
Discrete From (def. 1) between two Independent Continuants (BFO) whose external
boundaries are not adjacent.
Definition 3 (Externally Connected With) A symmetric subrelation of Spatially Dis-
crete From (def. 1) between two Independent Continuants (BFO) whose external bound-
aries are adjacent.
Definition 4 (Spatially Identical To) A symmetric spatial relation between two Inde-
pendent Continuants (BFO) in which both occupy precisely the same spatial region.
6
https://github.com/BDI-UFRGS/GeologicalSpatialRelationsOntology
Definition 5 (Spatially Partially Overlaps) A symmetric spatial relation between two
Independent Continuants (BFO) in which both share a part of the spatial regions they
occupy.
Definition 6 (Proper Spatial Part Of) A transitive subrelation of Located In (BFO)
between two Independent Continuants (BFO), x and y, in which the spatial region that x
occupies is entirely inside the spatial region that y occupies. It is the inverse relation of
Has Proper Spatial Part (def. 9).
Definition 7 (Tangential Proper Spatial Part Of) A subrelation of Proper Spatial
Part Of (def. 6) between two Independent Continuants (BFO) whose external boundaries
are adjacent. It is the inverse relation of Has Tangential Proper Spatial Part (def. 10).
Definition 8 (Non-tangential Proper Spatial Part Of) A subrelation of Proper Spa-
tial Part Of (def. 6) between two Independent Continuants (BFO) whose external bound-
aries are not adjacent. It is the inverse relation of Has Non-tangential Proper Spatial
Part (def. 11).
Definition 9 (Has Proper Spatial Part) A transitive subrelation of Location Of (BFO)
between two Independent Continuants (BFO), x and y, in which the spatial region that y
occupies is entirely inside the spatial region that x occupies. It is the inverse relation of
Proper Spatial Part Of (def. 6).
Definition 10 (Has Tangential Proper Spatial Part) A subrelation of Has Proper
Spatial Part (def. 9) between two Independent Continuants (BFO) whose external
boundaries are adjacent It is the inverse relation of Tangential Proper Spatial Part Of
(def. 7).
Definition 11 (Has Non-tangential Proper Spatial Part) A subrelation of Has Proper
Spatial Part (def. 9) between two Independent Continuants (BFO) whose external
boundaries are not adjacent. It is the inverse relation of Non-tangential Proper Spa-
tial Part Of (def. 8).
5.2. Directional relations
This set of directional relations (Figure 4) is based on the concepts of [Freeman 1975]. For
geological models, it makes sense to assume an extrinsic frame of reference. In this paper,
we consider the observer’s relative location as the frame of reference for simplicity rea-
sons. However, this assumption limits data integration because instances that assume dif-
ferent relative locations cannot be integrated. This limitation can be better worked in the
future, possibly by adopting a coordinate reference system as of [Battle and Kolas 2012]
as the frame of reference.
Below inverse of Above Left Of inverse of Right Of In Front Of inverse of Behind
Figure 4. The directional relations defined in this paper.
Definition 12 (Below) A spatial relation between two Independent Continuants (BFO),
x and y, in which x has a location lower than the location of y in the vertical axis corre-
sponding to the same frame of reference. It is the inverse relation of Above (def. 13).
Definition 13 (Above) A spatial relation between two Independent Continuants (BFO),
x and y, in which x has a location higher than the location of y in the vertical axis corre-
sponding to the same frame of reference. It is the inverse relation of Below (def. 12).
Definition 14 (Left Of) A spatial relation between two Independent Continuants (BFO),
x and y, in which x has a location to the east of the location of y in the horizontal axis
corresponding to the same frame of reference. It is the inverse relation of Right Of (def.
15).
Definition 15 (Right Of) A spatial relation between two Independent Continuants
(BFO), x and y, in which x has a location to the west of the location of y in the hori-
zontal axis corresponding to the same frame of reference. It is the inverse relation of Left
Of (def. 14).
Definition 16 (In Front Of) A spatial relation between two Independent Continuants
(BFO), x and y, in which x has a location that makes it nearer than y in the longitudinal
axis corresponding to the same frame of reference. It is the inverse relation of Behind
(def. 17).
Definition 17 (Behind) A spatial relation between two Independent Continuants (BFO),
x and y, in which y has a location that makes it nearer than x in the longitudinal axis
corresponding to the same frame of reference. It is the inverse relation of In Front Of
(def. 16).
6. The Karoo basin case study
Here, we discuss the practical application of the spatial relations ontology defined in Sec-
tion 5. For this purpose, we use a subset of geological data (see Figure 5) extracted from
the Karoo Basin dataset of [Hodgson et al. 2011]. The Karoo basin shows an exposed
outcrop of a large deep-water channel-levee system originated predominantly by turbid-
ity currents. This subset contains three delimited channel-form units named channel ele-
ments, which compose a greater channel-form named channel complex. Immediately to
the left of the channel complex, there is another unit named external levee.
We instantiate each unit, single or composite, as a GeoCore Geological Object.
With the objects instantiated, we can establish the spatial relations among them. The
assertions are made here as follows:
Figure 5. The subset of Karoo basin geological data on this work’s case study,
modified from [Hodgson et al. 2011].
1. the channel complex is related to the three channel elements by Has Tangential
Proper Spatial Part relation;
2. channel element 1 (Ch 1) is Externally Connected With and Below channel ele-
ment 2 (Ch 2);
3. channel element 1 (Ch 1) is Spatially Disconnected From and Below channel ele-
ment 3 (Ch 3);
4. channel element 2 (Ch 2) is Externally Connected With and Below channel ele-
ment 3 (Ch 3);
5. the external levee is Externally Connected With and Left Of the channel complex.
An OWL implementation of this case study can be found in the same OWL file that
contains the geological spatial relations ontology (see Section 5). These assertions and the
inferences made on them are illustrated in the diagram of Figure 6. The inferences were
generated by the HermiT OWL Reasoner7 , which is embedded in the Protègè ontology
editor8 .
It is possible to notice that the formal relations defined in the ontology are con-
siderably expressive. With a few assertions, it is possible to make inferences that express
the geological entities’ spatial structure. For example, in Figure 6, we can see that a
“externally connected with” assertion from “channel element 1” to “channel element 2”
generates at least three inferences (“externally connected with” in the opposite direction
and “spatially discrete from” in both directions). Such a model allows the representation
of the rock bodies in computer applications, the execution of semantic queries, determi-
nation of spatial inconsistencies on the sedimentary bodies descriptions, and detection of
analogous deposit architecture, among other benefits.
In sedimentary bodies like those represented here, geologists make associations
between spatial relations and hierarchical orders of geological objects. Objects that have
the same hierarchical order are always spatially discrete from each other, such as channel
7
http://www.hermit-reasoner.com/
8
https://protege.stanford.edu/
Asserted relations
external externally connected with channel
levee left of complex
has tangential proper spatial part has tangential proper spatial part
has tangential proper spatial part
channel externally connected with channel externally connected with channel
element 1 below element 2 below element 3
spatially disconnected from
below
Inferred relations (symmetric/inverse property)
external externally connected with channel
levee right of complex
tangential proper spatial part of tangential proper spatial part of
tangential proper spatial part of
channel externally connected with channel externally connected with channel
element 1 above element 2 above element 3
spatially disconnected from
above
Inferred relations (subrelation)
external spatially discrete from channel
levee spatially discrete from complex
proper spatial part of / has proper spatial part* proper spatial part of / has proper spatial part*
proper spatial part of / has proper spatial part*
channel spatially discrete from channel spatially discrete from channel
element 1 spatially discrete from element 2 spatially discrete from element 3
spatially discrete from
spatially discrete from
* represents two relations (one in each direction)
Figure 6. The relations between the Karoo subset’s geological objects. The con-
tinuous lines indicate asserted relations, i.e., relations that we formally
specified between the particulars. The dashed lines indicate inferred rela-
tions, i.e., relations that were generated by automatic reasoning.
elements 1, 2, and 3. One can establish the relative age between the objects only if they
are externally connected, e.g., channel element 2 is younger than channel element 1 in the
image’s frame of reference. If an object is a proper spatial part of another, it necessarily
has a lower hierarchical order, such as the channel elements in relation to the channel
complex.
7. Conclusion
This paper presented an ontological model of spatial relations between the geological
entities defined by the GeoCore ontology. We reviewed spatial relations from other on-
tological models and selected those that we considered useful in describing the spatial
distribution of the geological entities. The formal relations showed themselves expressive
in the sense that a few assertions derived several inferences that described the geological
entities’ spatial structure.
Our case study demonstrated how this ontology could help in the systematic de-
scription of geological object instances containing spatial distribution information. This
kind of information, if formally modeled, supports automatic reasoning to detect incon-
sistent reservoir 3D models and helps in determining similar architecture of fan analogous
systems during the reservoir characterization in the petroleum exploration activity.
This work is inserted in a larger project that proposes a domain ontology for
the systematic description of the geometrical, architectural, and lithological properties
of deep-water deposits. The model is conceived to support a visualization system that
will help the geologists explore the possibilities of spatial distributions of channels and
other elements in deep-water sedimentary environments, constrained by the semantics of
geometry and spatial relations between bodies. The tool will allow geologists to compare
different occurrences to find analogous, determinate patterns and tendencies, statistic or
clustering comparison, and others.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the Brazilian funding agencies CNPq and CAPES for financing this
work and the Research Centre of Petrobras (CENPES) for collaborating on this project.
We thank the three anonymous reviewers and Fabrı́cio Henrique Rodrigues for their com-
ments, which have improved this paper.
References
Arp, R., Smith, B., and Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with Basic Formal
Ontology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Battle, R. and Kolas, D. (2012). Enabling the geospatial semantic web with Parliament
and GeoSPARQL. Semantic Web Journal, 3:355–370.
Clarke, B. L. (1981). A calculus of individuals based on ‘connection’. Notre Dame
Journal of Formal Logic, 22:204–218.
Cohn, A. G. and Hazarika, S. (2001). Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning:
An overview. Fundamenta Informaticae, 46:1–29.
Cohn, A. G. and Renz, J. (2008). Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning. In
van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., and Porter, B., editors, Foundations of Artificial Intel-
ligence, pages 551–596. Elsevier.
Egenhofer, M. J. (1994). Spatial SQL: A query and presentation language. IEEE Trans-
actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6:86–95.
Fonseca, C. M., Porello, D., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J. P. A., and Guarino, N. (2019).
Relations in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In Laender, A. H. F., Pernici, B.,
Lim, E. P., and de Oliveira, J. P. M., editors, Conceptual Modeling: 38th International
Conference, ER 2019, pages 28–42. Springer.
Freeman, J. (1975). The modelling of spatial relations. Computer Graphics and Image
Processing, 4:156–171.
Garcia, L. F., Abel, M., Perrin, M., and Alvarenga, R. S. (2020). The GeoCore ontology:
A core ontology for general use in geology. Computers & Geosciences, 135.
Guarino, N., Oberle, D., and Staab, S. (2009). What is an ontology? In Staab, S. and
Studer, R., editors, Handbook on Ontologies, pages 1–17. Springer.
Hodgson, D. M., Di Celma, C. N., Brunt, R. L., and Flint, S. S. (2011). Submarine slope
degradation and aggradation and the stratigraphic evolution of channel-levee systems.
Journal of the Geological Society, 168:625–628.
Hudelot, C. (2005). Towards a Cognitive Vision Platform for Semantic Image Interpreta-
tion; Application to the Recognition of Biological Organisms. PhD thesis, Université
Nice Sophia Antipolis.
Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications.
The Knowledge Engineering Review, 11:93–136.