Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in GIS Database
Citations
6 citations
Cites methods from "Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in ..."
...As Catalog we use con terra terraCatalog, which is an implementation of the OGC Web Catalog Service (OGC, 2004a) specification and makes it possible to store and retrieve information about spatial data and services....
[...]
3 citations
Cites methods from "Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in ..."
...We have developed indicator-based approach for spatial data quality risk and implemented the resulting approach in a geographical information system [8]....
[...]
2 citations
Cites methods from "Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in ..."
...We have developed indicator-based approach for spatial data quality communication and implemented the resulting approach in a geographical information system[16]....
[...]
1 citations
Cites background or methods from "Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in ..."
...In our previous work we defined a framework for I-QoS provisioning in geo-service architectures [4]....
[...]
...We have developed indicator-based approach for spatial data quality communication and implemented the resulting approach in a geographical information system[4]....
[...]
...Based on the definitions proposed in [4], we define the following quality metrics for a cube C....
[...]
References
65 citations
"Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in ..." refers background or methods in this paper
...We estimate the sizes of the various subsets of R and of the set RC using the attribute-level quality metrics derived in Equality(1) and(2)....
[...]
...From Equality (1), we know that each projected identifier attribute of S has accuracy k α , whereas each projected nonidentifier attribute of S has an accuracy of γ (2)....
[...]
6 citations
"Evaluating Spatial Data Quality in ..." refers background or methods in this paper
...Using 1 2R R R= and the definitions in Section II, we have 1 2 1 2 1 2 A A R S S S S α α α= = (7) 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 A I I A I I R S S S S S S S S β α β α β β β + + = = + + 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 A N I N N A R N I N N S S S S S S S S S S S S S S μ + + = + + ( ) ( )1 2 2 1 1 21 1μ μ μ μ μ μ= − + − + 1 2 1 2μ μ μ μ= + − From equality(6), we have ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 CR R χ χ χ χμ μ χ χ + − = − − − − Therefore, we have C R R C R R R R χ μ = − +1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) χ χ χ χμ μ χ χ + −= − − − − 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 μ μ μ μ χ χ χ χμ μ χ χ − − + − + + − − − − − 1 2 1 2χ χ χ χ= + − (8) From Equality(7), we can see that the accuracy of the output of the Cartesian product operator is less than the accuracy of either of the input relations, and that the accuracy can become very low if the participating tables are not of high quality....
[...]
...We estimate the sizes of the various subsets of R and of the set RC using the attribute-level quality metrics derived in Equality(1) and(2)....
[...]
...From Equality (1), we know that each projected identifier attribute of S has accuracy kα , whereas each projected nonidentifier attribute of S has an accuracy of γ (2)....
[...]
...From Equality (1), we know that each projected identifier attribute of S has accuracy k α , whereas each projected nonidentifier attribute of S has an accuracy of γ (2)....
[...]