<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Relative Location Ontology: An Ontological Model for Representing Directional Topological Relationships between Spatial Entities in Oriented Space</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Anne Göbels</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Jakob Beetz</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Chair of Design Computation, RWTH Aachen University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Schinkelstr. 1, 52062 Aachen</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>1999</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>91</fpage>
      <lpage>104</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>This paper introduces the Relative Location Ontology (RELOC), which enables the expression of the spatial relationship between two entities using directional-topological terms. The ontology is designed to be compatible with the natural language-based approach of describing relative locations, enabling the conversion of existing location descriptions into structured spatial graph representations. The ontology provides directional, axis-related properties (e.g., longitudinal axis relations: front, center, rear) and topological properties (e.g., meet, contained in, intersect). These properties are finally merged into combined properties (e.g., containedInFront) to reflect the spatial information of statements like 'A is in the front part of B'. The application context of the RELOC Ontology is the processing of existing damage documentation of bridges. By converting existing textual bridge inspection datasets into structured spatial graphs, the ontology contributes to integrating legacy data into enhanced bridge management approaches.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>Linked Data</kwd>
        <kwd>Natural Language Localisation</kwd>
        <kwd>Damage Documentation Processing</kwd>
        <kwd>Bridge Maintenance</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>modernisation of bridge maintenance processes, it is essential to make the documented
inspection information accessible and compatible with state-of-the-art techniques like Building
Information Modelling (BIM). To achieve this transformation, the implicit spatial
information of the textual damage documentation must be extracted and converted into an explicit
machine-readable structure.</p>
      <p>Since existing assets usually involve many heterogeneous resources, Linked Data technologies
are suitable for structuring and linking this data. Web ontologies enable the representation of
the assets as defined (topological) graph structures.</p>
      <p>
        In the bridge maintenance domain, the Bridge Topology Ontology (BROT) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] and the Damage
Topology Ontology (DOT) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] exist, which can represent the bridge structure and its damage
areas as topological graphs. However, they cannot depict the spatial relationships that natural
language descriptions can express and thus cannot directly be used to reflect the information of
the textual data.
      </p>
      <p>To close this gap, we have developed the Relative Location Ontology (RELOC), which is
compatible with the axis-based, directional approach of natural-language-based localisation.
Due to this compatibility, the ontology can convert existing (damage) location descriptions into
defined spatial relationships. Furthermore, it enables the creation of spatial building/bridge
graphs that can be queried using directional terms.</p>
      <p>
        Thus, the RELOC Ontology allows for the automatic processing of spatial statements such as
"the third beam from the right" and "damage at the rear, left side surface". Thereby, the RELOC
Ontology manages to convert the existing textual bridge data sets into structured spatial graphs.
Besides the advantages of spatial analysis (of approx. 40,0000 existing bridge data sets [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]),
the ontology facilitates the integration of existing inspection data into modern object-oriented
applications.
      </p>
      <p>This paper outlines the concept and structure of the RELOC Ontology and demonstrates
its practical application in processing existing inspection data. As natural language location
descriptions can find application in various domains, we have chosen not to restrict the RELOC
Ontology to a specific domain or model it as an extension of an existing ontology such as
BROT. This approach ensures that the ontology can be easily reused. Nevertheless, we provide
examples of how the RELOC Ontology can be aligned with existing ontologies used in the
bridge and maintenance sector.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Related Work</title>
      <p>
        Spatial relations have been explored in various works, with topology primarily addressed in the
ifeld of geography and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). One of the fundamental works
in this area was carried out by Egenhofer and Franzosa, developing the 4-Intersection model of
binary point-set-topological relations in two-dimensional space [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. This model compares the
interior and boundary of two objects to define eight diferent topological relations: Disjoint,
Meet, Contains, Inside, Covers, Covered by, Overlap, and Equal. Based on that, the extended
9-Intersection model was developed, allowing for more precise distinctions by considering the
exterior of objects as well [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        The approach was adapted to 3D space by Zlatanova, who also investigated the relationships
between objects with diferent dimensionality [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. However, while these relationships can be
technically defined, they do not always have equivalents in natural language [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In research related to image recognition, directional spatial relations are considered in the
work of Freeman, defining a set of primitive spatial expressions (left of, right of, in front of,
behind, above, below, near, far, inside, outside, etc.) that humans use to encode the relations of
objects detected in images [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Hudelot et al. developed an ontological model to represent these
spatial relations in the context of image recognition in combination with a fuzzyness approach
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. While spatial relations have been extensively studied in these fields, the approaches focus
on deriving topological or directional relations from given spatial structures (depicted in images
or maps) and less on deriving spatial arrangements based on these relations. Moreover, most of
the works presented are limited to two-dimensional space. However, the RELOC Ontology can
build on these approaches and adopt their fundamental concepts.
      </p>
      <p>
        Topological relations are also an integral part of the ontologies of the Linked Building Data
(LBD) domain. The Building Ontology Topology (BOT)[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] defines containment, adjacency,
and intersection relations between building components and zones, while the BROT Ontology
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] adapts these relations for bridge components and zones. The DOT Ontology [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] ofers a
model to describe topological relations between components, damage areas, damage patterns,
and damage elements. However, none of these models include directional information.
      </p>
      <p>
        The Area of Interest Ontology (AOI)[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ] is an auxiliary ontology for damage documentation
that includes directional information. The AOI ontology enables the definition of subareas of a
specific component surface, reflecting the damaged areas. It defines five diferent area types: the
lower, central, and upper area for the vertical axis and the central and peripheral area for the
horizontal axis. Additionally, it includes definitions of edge and surface (top, bottom, periphery)
and distinguishes between interior and exterior. However, the directional information is kept
general, with no distinction between right and left, and the longitudinal axis is not considered
as it is only a two-dimensional approach. Moreover, defining the particular surface of the
component must happen with external references (e.g., "north side") and is not part of the
model.
      </p>
      <p>All LBD ontologies presented share the common objective of recording and analysing spatial
data in a structured way (DOT, AOI) or representing complex spatial structures in a simplified
way (BOT, BROT). However, compatibility with natural language localisation is not within
the scope of these ontologies. Thus, the proposed RELOC Ontology aims to fill this gap by
enabling the use of directional expressions in conjunction with these topological models. In
this way, existing natural-language-based data sets can benefit from the methods provided by
these ontologies supporting enhanced data management.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Relative Location Ontology</title>
      <p>
        The RELOC Ontology was created using the seven-step method described by Noy and
Mcguinness [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. The first step involved defining the domain and scope of the ontology. In section 3.4,
we introduce the main idea and terminologies of the ontology. We then describe the technical
implementation in section 3.5. Based on the analysis of existing ontologies in section 2, we
outline an alignment of them with the RELOC Ontology and finally demonstrate its application.
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>3.1. Concept and Scope</title>
        <p>The RELOC Ontology is designed to describe the topological and directional relations between
two spatial objects. Its primary goal is to transfer the spatial information of
natural-languagebased location terms into a formally defined relation that can enrich existing, non-geometrical
data of a spatial asset or concept with structured spatial information.</p>
        <p>The key concept of the RELOC Ontology is the separate definition of spatial relationships per
axis. This creates compatibility with natural language spatial descriptions, as these expressions
are only valid for a specific axis. For instance, if you want to precisely describe a position in
three-dimensional space, you have to combine axial spatial expressions, such as "the upper right
corner at the front".</p>
        <p>In addition, this concept enables spatial relationships that refer only to a specific feature
of the reference object, expressing, for example, the same height or a particular alignment.
Since only one spatial axis is considered at a time, the ontology can be used for 2D and 3D
objects (e.g., component and damage areas). The prerequisite is defining a common viewing
direction/orientation so all objects share the same axis reference system.</p>
        <p>Another essential characteristic of the RELOC Ontology is the combination of topological
and directional terms. This approach is intended to reflect the variety of NL expressions and
also to decompose them into their topological and directional aspects, contributing to deriving
complex spatial structures from these expressions.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>3.2. Application Domain</title>
        <p>The primary development and application context of the RELOC Ontology is the bridge
maintenance domain (see section 4). The inherent orientation of a bridge structure allows the
convenient use of directional location descriptions to locate damage areas or describe the
position of components. However, these descriptions are primarily intended to be read by the
inspectors to find the damage areas on site.</p>
        <p>Thus, the motivation for developing the RELOC Ontology is to translate existing, implicit,
textual location descriptions of bridge damage into an explicit, structured spatial relationship
between component/bridge and damage.</p>
        <p>Since the overall process should not depend on externally created geometry models (which
often do not exist), we also use the ontology to define the spatial relation between the bridge
components. Combined with the concepts of the BROT ontology, a spatial graph of the bridge
can be created that is used to process the damage data.</p>
        <p>Thus, the RELOC Ontology not only allows us to be independent of external models but also
creates a graph that can be spatially queried with natural language terms, which is necessary
for processing the damage location descriptions.</p>
        <p>The application context also determines the expressiveness and accuracy of the RELOC
Ontology. Its information cannot exceed that available in natural language. For example, the
topological terms are intended to depict the diference between "in front of" and "in the front"
and not to infer exact geometric-mathematical values.</p>
        <p>However, the ontology itself is not limited to the bridge maintenance domain. Thus, it can be
used to express the spatial relations between any objects that share a common oriented space.
reloc:meet
A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:meetFront
„directly in front of“</p>
        <p>B</p>
        <p>A
reloc:meetRear
„directly behind“</p>
        <p>A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:meetLeft
„directly left of“
B
A
A
B</p>
        <p>Reference (viewing) direction
B</p>
        <p>A
reloc:meetRight
„directly right of“
reloc:
meetTop
„directly above“</p>
        <p>B</p>
        <p>A
reloc:intersectRight
„intersects with the right side
of“
reloc:
intersectTop
„intersects with
the top side of“
reloc:
meetBottom
„directly under“
reloc:
intersect
Bottom
„intersects with
the bottom side of“
A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:intersectFront
„intersects with
the front of“
B</p>
        <p>A
A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:intersectLeft
„intersects with the</p>
        <p>left side of“
reloc:intersectRear
„intersects with the
back of“
reloc:containedInRear
„contained in front</p>
        <p>area of“
A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:containedInFront
„contained in front of“</p>
        <p>A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:containedIn
LongitudinalCenter
„contained in longitudinal
central area of“</p>
        <p>B
A</p>
        <p>A</p>
        <p>B
A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:containedInLeft
„contained in
left area of“
reloc:containedIn
TransversalCenter
„contained in transversal
central area of“</p>
        <p>B</p>
        <p>A
reloc:containedInRight
„contained in right area of“</p>
        <p>A
B
A
B
B
A
reloc:
containedIn
Top
„contained in
upper area of“
reloc:
containedIn
VerticalCenter
„contained in
vertical central
area of“
reloc:
containedIn
Bottom
„contained in
lower area of“</p>
        <p>A B
reloc:equal
Longitudinal
„same longitudinal
center and lenght as“</p>
        <p>A B
reloc:equal
Transversal
„same transversal
center and width as“</p>
        <p>A</p>
        <p>B
reloc:equal</p>
        <p>Vertical
„same vertical
center and height as“
reloc:hasRelative
SpatialRelationTo
reloc:intersect
reloc:containedIn</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>3.3. Competency Questions</title>
        <p>When applying the Relative Location Ontology, it is possible to make spatial queries, answering,
for example, the following competency questions (CQ):
intersection, or equality relationship?
is at the beginning of B?"
• CQ1: What is the vertical, transversal or longitudinal relation between two entities?
• CQ2: Do axis-related extents of two entities have a topological adjacency, containment,
• CQ3: What are the directional and topological properties of the natural language term "A</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>3.4. Terms and Design of the Ontology</title>
        <p>The core of the RELOC Ontology is the property has Relative Spatial Relation To, which relates
two spatial entities to each other. The domain and range for that property is the class Spatial
Entity, which can represent any kind of entity that has spatial features and can be located in
two- or three-dimensional space. In the application context, these entities can be individual
component or damage objects.</p>
        <p>The idea of the ontology is to further specify this higher-level relationship by defining a
hierarchy of sub-relations, where the final level of properties expresses a directional topological
relation between the referencing entity and its reference entity.</p>
        <p>In the following, the referencing entity is called A, and its reference entity is called B. Since
the ontology defines axis-dependent relationships, the terms A and B do not refer to entire
(2Dor 3D-) objects but only to the areas/extensions of the objects on the specific axis.</p>
        <p>
          As displayed in figure 1, the ontology contains 2D topological relations and directional relations.
The topological relations are subdivided into the four categories meet, intersect, contained in
and equal, based on the terms defined in the 4-Intersection model [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ] (see section 2).
        </p>
        <p>The meet property expresses an adjacency relationship between A and B. The intersect
relationship states A and B are partly overlapping, and the contained in relationship declares
that A is inside of B. The equal relationship means that A and B are identical.</p>
        <p>The categories covers/covered by and disjoint of the 4-Intersection model are not in the scope
of the RELOC Ontology, as the first ones are too specific to be derived from a natural-language
description, and the latter is too broad to derive a spatial dependency from it. The contains
relation, as opposite from contained in, is (currently) not part of the ontology since it cannot be
combined with a directional location term in our approach.</p>
        <p>The directional relations are separated by axis reference, leading to longitudinal axis relation,
transversal axis relation and vertical axis relation, where the reference axis/viewing direction of
the described space corresponds with the longitudinal axis direction. Each of these properties
has three sub-properties, dividing the space related to the respective axis into one central area
and two peripheral areas (front, longitudinal center, rear; left, transversal center, right; bottom,
vertical center, top).</p>
        <p>The final level of properties combines each directional with each topological relation (where
applicable), leading to 24 expressive spatial relations. The directional information is to be
interpreted referring to the target/reference object (B). For example, the relation A meetFront B
means "A is in front of B", and A containedInRight B indicates that "A is inside the right area of
B".</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>3.5. Technical Implementation</title>
        <p>The technical implementation of the RELOC Ontology is made using the Web Ontology Language
(OWL)1. The namespace for the ontology is https://w3id.org/reloc#, and the suggested prefix is
reloc. A preliminary ontology specification draft can be found here 2.
1http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
2https://w3id.org/reloc
reloc:2DTopologicalRelation
owl:SymmetricProperty
reloc : https://w3id.org/reloc#
owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
rdf: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#</p>
        <p>reloc:directionalRelation
reloc:longitudinalAxisRelation
reloc:longitudinalCenter
reloc:front
rdf:type
rdfs:label
rdfs:label
skos:altLabel
owl:ObjectProperty ;
"front"@en ;
"Vorne"@de ;
"Anfang"@de, "beginning"@en,
"Vorderseite"@de, "front side"@en,
rdfs:subPropertyOf reloc:longitudinalAxisRelation .</p>
        <sec id="sec-3-5-1">
          <title>The front abutment</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-5-2">
          <title>The abutment at the beginning of the bridge :Abutment :Bridge</title>
          <p>The spatial relations are implemented as owl:ObjectProperty objects and the hierarchy is
expressed by rdfs:subPropertyOf relations. Figure 2 displays the full technical diagram of the
RELOC Ontology.</p>
          <p>Each property’s label(s) express their equivalent in natural language terms. This is intended
to explain the meaning of the property and to create a mapping of the ontology to natural
language. To extend this mapping to diferent spatial expressions, which would be represented
by the same property in the ontology, we used the SKOS vocabulary 3 to define alternative
labels. Figure 3 shows an example of using alternative labels for the property reloc:front and
their use for processing diferent textual expressions which refer to the same location (see also
ifgure 7). The label definitions are, therefore, a central component of the ontology that enables
the processing of textual descriptions.
3.5.1. Functional Extension
Since the RELOC Ontology was developed in the context of processing existing bridge
documentation data, we added a small functional extension that covers an alternative method that is
owl:ObjectProperty
owl:DatatypeProperty
Object A
reloc:containedInFront
reloc:containedInRight Object B</p>
          <p>reloc:meetTop
brot:adjacentZone / brot:adjacentComponent
bot:adjacentZone / bot:adjacentElement</p>
          <p>reloc:intersectFront
Object A reloc:containedInRight
reloc:containedInTop</p>
          <p>Object B
bot:intersectsZone / bot:intersectingElement
bot: https://w3id.org/bot#
brot: https://w3id.org/brot#
reloc: https://w3id.org/reloc#
Legend: Vertical Axis</p>
          <p>Longitudinal Axis
Transversal Axis
reloc:containedInFront
reloc:containedInRight
reloc:containedInTop
Object A</p>
          <p>Object B
brot:containsZone / brot:containsComponent</p>
          <p>bot:containsZone / bot:containsElement
used for locating damage. The extension enables the expression of a defined/measured distance
of a location to a reference location. For instance, the damage location "28m from the front of
the structure" references a directional area of a specific spatial entity and then defines a distance
to that location.</p>
          <p>The ontological structure for this localisation approach is shown in figure 4. The
class reloc:RelativeLocationWithOfset is introduced, being in the domain of the
general reloc:hasRelativeSpatialRelationTo property to define the reference location (e.g.,
reloc:containedInFront), and of the datatype property reloc:hasOfsetValue to define the distance
(e.g., "28.00" xsd:float). The documented dimension of the distance value is stored as a string
using the property reloc:hasOfsetValueUnit (e.g., "m").
3.5.2. Alignment with Existing Ontologies
As the main class of the ontology, "reloc:SpatialEntity", can represent any kind of spatial concept
or object that can be physically located, the alignment with other ontologies is straightforward.</p>
          <p>For our use case in the bridge maintenance domain, we have explicitly aligned the DOT,
BOT, and BROT Ontology with the RELOC Ontology by defining their respective main classes
(bot:Element, bot:Zone, brot:Component, brot:SpatialZone, dot:DamageArea, dot:DamageElement,
dot:DamagePattern) as subclasses of reloc:SpatialEntity. We stored these definitions in a small
alignment module 4.</p>
          <p>Besides the direct class alignment, it is also possible to derive axis-independent topological
relationships defined in the BOT and BROT Ontology if two spatial entities are related by a
RELOC property for each axis. Figure 5 illustrates spatial arrangements, their definition using
the RELOC Ontology and possible equivalent topological relationships of the BOT or BROT
ontology, depending on the class types of the related entities.
Front Substructure</p>
          <p>Girder and its sub-components</p>
          <p>Equal
Transversal
"same width as"
Contained In Front
""is contained in the
front area of"</p>
          <p>Abutment</p>
          <p>or
Pierzone</p>
          <p>Girder</p>
          <p>Meet
Bottom
"under"
Intersect Front
""intersects with the front</p>
          <p>side of"
firstSpan</p>
          <p>Equal Transversal</p>
          <p>Equal Longitudinal</p>
          <p>ContainedIn Top</p>
          <p>MGMG
Girder Meet Left</p>
          <p>ContainedIn Bottom
ContainedIn Right</p>
          <p>Girder
Deck
Main Girder
ContainedIn
Longitudinal</p>
          <p>Center</p>
          <p>Span</p>
          <p>Abutment</p>
          <p>or
Pierzone</p>
          <p>Meet
Bottom</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. Application</title>
      <p>To apply the RELOC Ontology, first, the viewing direction must be determined, which defines
the orientation of the space to be described.</p>
      <p>In our use case of processing existing bridge inspection data, this direction was already
implicitly part of the documented spatial descriptions. In the bridge maintenance domain, it
is usually a predefined "inspection direction," which refers to a direction expressed by city
references or cardinal points. However, the direction definition is not in the scope of the RELOC
Ontology and must be defined externally.</p>
      <p>
        We applied the ontology to define the spatial relationships between individual bridge
components and between components and damage areas. The original bridge maintenance data
sets were primarily stored in a relational database. In previous steps, we converted these data
records into Resource Description Format (RDF) graphs [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ]. Figure 7 shows as input
data a (simplified) example of a converted damage entry of a maintenance data set in RDF (the
translation in the brackets is only inserted for clarification).
      </p>
      <p>Based on the converted bridge maintenance graph, we created a structural bridge graph
containing individual components using the BROT and Bridge Components Ontology (BRCOMP)
5. As described in section 3.5.2, we have aligned these ontologies with the RELOC Ontology,
thus, all bridge component and damage area instances created also belong to reloc:SpatialEntity.</p>
      <p>We spatially linked the components to each other using the RELOC Ontology, based on
implicit spatial knowledge of typical bridge structures (e.g., "The substructure is under the
superstructure", "The caps are right and left of the roadway", etc.).</p>
      <p>Figure 6 shows, for example, these "typical" spatial relationships of a front substructure to a
girder (left illustration) and the spatial composition of a main girder element (right illustration).</p>
      <p>The resulting spatial bridge graph (see upper part of figure 7) subsequently served as the
basis for processing the damage locations. This workflow was separated into two steps: finding
the damaged component based on its type and position information and spatially linking the
TBox
ABox
brcomp:Abutment
a</p>
      <p>reloc:equalTransversal
:Abutment 01 reloc:containedInFront
reloc:front
[rdfs:label: "Front",
"Beginning"]
damage area object to this component.</p>
      <p>Figure 7 shows an example of the first step, searching the bridge graph for the front abutment.
There were diferent possibilities to define the respective query pattern. To keep the query
lfexible for diferent textual inputs, we decided to compare the textual term used in the bridge
documentation with the labels of the property we are searching for. The figure actually combines
two examples, showing a query based on two diferent textual expressions to illustrate the
functionality of the alternative labels, explained in section 3.5.</p>
      <p>As the component was found, the location terms describing the damage area were processed.
As we worked with semi-structured data of the bridge documentation and had a limited,
predefined collection of location terms, we used a mapping table that defines which terms are
converted into which RELOC properties. Simplified parts of this table are displayed in figure 8
and 9.</p>
      <p>For each damage of the bridge documentation data set, we created a damage area instance of
the dot:DamageArea class. This damage instance was then linked to the found component by
the RELOC properties taken from the mapping table based on the documented location terms
(see figure 8).</p>
      <p>Input
TBox
ABox
dot:DamageArea
brcomp:Abutment</p>
      <p>a
:Abutment 01
brcoDmepc:Gkirder</p>
      <p>a
:GirderDeck
brcomp: ht ps:/ w3id.org/brcomp#
brstr:ht ps:/ w3id.org/brstr#
reloc: ht ps:/ w3id.org/reloc#
dot: ht ps:/ w3id.org/dot#
brstr:Span</p>
      <p>a
:Span 02</p>
      <p>As the created links only express spatial relations, we additionally linked the component
semantically to the damage area by dot:hasDamageArea. This distinction is important, as a
damage area can be located in reference to multiple diferent components or spatial zones, as
can be seen in figure 9.</p>
      <p>Once all damage entries have been processed, an object-oriented, spatially structured bridge
maintenance graph is created from natural-language-based textual information, allowing spatial
insights to be gained.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. Discussion</title>
      <p>The application of the RELOC Ontology enables the retrieval of information as formulated in
the competency questions (see section 3.3). Through the sub-property relationships of the final
RELOC properties to their directional and topological super-properties and the division of the
directional properties into the three spatial axes, the diferent qualities/types of a relationship
can be easily queried. Thus, Q1 and Q2 can be easily implemented by requesting or determining
the super-properties of a specific relationship in a SPARQL query.</p>
      <p>By defining (alternative) natural language labels for the relationships, the first part of Q3
(What are the directional and topological properties of the natural language term "A is at the
beginning of B" ?) can be answered. The term "at the beginning of" refers to the longitudinal
axis-related property "front". However, the precise topological relationship cannot be derived
directly from this, as the NL term leaves room for interpretation. By including the object types
of A and B into the query (e.g., A = Damage, B = Component), a topological relationship can be
inferred (e.g., contained in), but this cannot be inferred solely from using the RELOC Ontology.</p>
      <p>Therefore, if the data set should be queried using free text input or a direct conversion
from text to properties (instead of a mapping table) is desired, the RELOC Ontology must be
considered in its interaction with the other ontologies used.</p>
      <p>Combining topological and directional relations in one property efectively implements a
complex spatial relationship without creating multiple triples. This aspect allows easy reverse
spatial queries, respectively, inferring reverse spatial relations of objects (e.g.: A meetLeft B ==
B meetRight A), supporting flexible spatial queries/entry points to the data.</p>
      <p>
        This merging can be criticised as the higher-level directional properties (front, right, top,
etc.) do not really describe spatial relations but indicate locations. Thus, more precisely,
they should be defined as classes instead of properties, as seen in the AOI ontology [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. For
our application, however, the simplicity of only one combined property outweighs the (more
accurate) combination of classes and properties.
      </p>
      <p>We demonstrated the applicability and benefits of the RELOC Ontology for the use case of
processing existing text data from bridge maintenance data sets. However, we are aware that
it is a simplified representation of complex spatial relationships. It is primarily suitable for
expressing rectangular relationships and cannot express diagonal/oblique positions to each
other. Additionally, the ontology’s informative value is limited for components with complex
geometries lacking clearly defined lateral surfaces.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. Conclusion and Outlook</title>
      <p>This paper has introduced the Relative Location Ontology, which was developed to convert
natural-language-based location descriptions into structured spatial relationships. The ontology
is characterised by the combined specification of directional and topological relationships and
the separate consideration of individual axes to ensure compatibility with natural-language
expressions.</p>
      <p>We have demonstrated how the ontology contributes to transforming textual, semi-structured
datasets of bridge maintenance into RDF graphs that can be spatially queried and are structurally
compatible with object-based data models. By that, the ontology enables the straightforward
integration of legacy data into modern data structures and workflows.</p>
      <p>In the following stage, we aim to implement this conversion process for a larger number of
datasets (approx. 10,000 bridges) to enable comprehensive spatial analyses. By that, we want
to open up the vast dataset of existing bridge documentation as a knowledge and experience
database. In addition, the converted data sets can be used as training data to extend the
processing of spatial natural language data to unstructured data sets in the future.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Acknowledgments</title>
      <p>This research is part of the Raumlink project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG)
– Project number 501812634.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Saback</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Popescu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Blanksvärd</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Täljsten</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Asset Management of Existing Concrete Bridges Using Digital Twins and BIM: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Nordic Concrete Research</source>
          <volume>66</volume>
          (
          <year>2022</year>
          )
          <fpage>91</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>111</lpage>
          . doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .2478/ncr-2021-0020.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bundesministerium</surname>
            <given-names>für Verkehr</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Bau und Stadtentwicklung, Abteilung Straßenbau.,
          <source>ASBING 2013 Anweisung Straßeninformationsbank Segment Bauwerksdaten</source>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.-H.</given-names>
            <surname>Hamdan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Scherer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Integration of BIM-related bridge information in an ontological knowledgebase</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - (LDAC)</source>
          ,
          <source>CEUR-WS</source>
          ,
          <year>2020</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>77</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>90</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.-H.</given-names>
            <surname>Hamdan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Bonduel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Scherer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>An ontological model for the representation of damage to constructions</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 7th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - (LDAC)</source>
          ,
          <source>CEUR-WS</source>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>64</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>77</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bundesanstalt</surname>
            <given-names>für Straßenwesen</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Brückenstatistik,
          <year>2024</year>
          . URL: https://www.bast.de/DE/ Statistik/Bruecken/Brueckenstatistik.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&amp;v=
          <fpage>21</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Egenhofer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. D.</given-names>
            <surname>Franzosa</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Point-set topological spatial relations</article-title>
          ,
          <source>International journal of geographical information systems 5</source>
          (
          <year>1991</year>
          )
          <fpage>161</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>174</lpage>
          . doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1080/ 02693799108927841.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Egenhofer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mark</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>J. e. Herring,</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The 9-Intersection: Formalism and Its Use for Natural-Language Spatial Predicates (94-1</article-title>
          ) (
          <year>1994</year>
          ). URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 5nj6647c.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Zlatanova</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>3D GIS for Urban Development, number no. 69 in ITC Dissertation, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences ; Institute for Computer Graphics</article-title>
          and Vision, Graz University of Technology,
          <year>2000</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Gröger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>George</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Geometry and Topology, in: W. Kresse, D. Danko (Eds.),
          <source>Springer Handbook of Geographic Information</source>
          , Springer International Publishing,
          <year>2022</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Freeman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>The modelling of spatial relations</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Computer Graphics and Image Processing</source>
          <volume>4</volume>
          (
          <year>1975</year>
          )
          <fpage>156</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>171</lpage>
          . doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1016/
          <fpage>S0146</fpage>
          -664X(
          <issue>75</issue>
          )
          <fpage>80007</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>4</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Hudelot</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Atif</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>I. Bloch</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Fuzzy spatial relation ontology for image interpretation</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Fuzzy Sets and Systems</source>
          <volume>159</volume>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <fpage>1929</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1951</lpage>
          . doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1016/j.fss.
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <volume>02</volume>
          .011.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. H.</given-names>
            <surname>Rasmussen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Pauwels</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Hviid</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Karlshøj</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Proposing a Central AEC Ontology That Allows for Domain Specific Extensions</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction</source>
          , Heriot-Watt University,
          <year>2017</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>237</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>244</lpage>
          . doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .24928/ JC3-2017/0153.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>A</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>-H. Hamdan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scherer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Areas of Interest - Semantic description of component locations for damage assessment</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: EG-ICE 2020 Proceedings: Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering</source>
          , Berlin,
          <year>2020</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Noy</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Mcguinness</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Knowledge Systems Laboratory</source>
          <volume>32</volume>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Göbels</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Conversion of infrastructure inspection data into Linked Data models</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: 32. Forum Bauinformatik</source>
          <year>2021</year>
          , Darmstadt,
          <year>2021</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Göbels</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Beetz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Conversion of legacy domain models into ontologies for infrastructure maintenance</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 9th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC</source>
          <year>2021</year>
          ,
          <article-title>CEUR-WS</article-title>
          ,
          <year>Luxembourg</year>
          ,
          <year>2021</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>