WasGeo: Advancing Spatial Intelligence Through SQL, SPARQL, and OWL Integration

WasGeo: Advancing Spatial Intelligence Through SQL, SPARQL, and OWL Integration

Najla Sassi (MIS Department, School of Business, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia) and Wassim Jaziri (MIS Department, School of Business, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia)
Copyright: © 2025 |Pages: 19
DOI: 10.4018/IJSWIS.383577
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

In this paper the authors propose Well-Architected Semantic GEOframework (WasGeo), a unified framework for addressing semantic heterogeneity and intrinsic complexity in geospatial data. Its architecture integrates relational databases and semantic technologies to support Structured Query Language for data handling, SPARQL Protocol and Resource Description Framework Query Language for semantic querying, and Web Ontology Language for ontology reasoning. The performance of the proposed framework was tested using predefined queries processed on LinkedGeoData datasets. Benchmark comparisons were made to evaluate WasGeo against Ontop and GeoSPARQL. The proposed framework achieved a reasoning accuracy of 95%, processed up to 1 million Resource Description Framework triples, and demonstrated execution times ranging from 0.3 to 7.7 seconds. Comparative benchmarks show that WasGeo provides greater reasoning depth than GeoSPARQL and Ontop, while maintaining better balance between scalability and analytical power. These results position WasGeo as a robust and practical framework for advanced semantic geospatial querying, although future enhancements are needed for scalability.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Spatio-temporal challenges within geospatial applications need consideration of all aspects of spatial, temporal, and semantic properties of the information (Claramunt, 2020; Jaziri et al., 2013). In fact, with the increasing size and diversity of geospatial datasets, it has become difficult for traditional geographic information system (GIS) systems to process and reason about such data (Usmani et al., 2020). It is well known that the basic functionalities of GIS are largely based on relational database management systems. Structured Query Language (SQL), widely regarded as the main tool for this task, is able to store and process structured geospatial data efficiently (International Organization for Standardization, 2023). However, although SQL is very efficient in managing large structured datasets, it is less effective in handling semantics and implicit knowledge. Most modern geospatial applications utilize data that are semantically rich and usually unstructured, with presentations in heterogeneous formats. Advanced knowledge inference capabilities responding to such challenges are therefore much needed for the interoperability among diverse datasets.

One effective approach to enhancing geospatial data is through the use of semantic technologies (Liang & Zhang, 2025, Ranatunga et al., 2025). Tools like the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) provide additional context and deeper meaning to data. As for RDF, it represents data as triples, thereby facilitating the combination of data coming from heterogeneous sources (World Wide Web Consortium [W3C], 2004). Meanwhile, OWL is a powerful language for defining complex ontologies. Through reasoning mechanisms, this standard enables to deduce new relationships and insights from existing data (W3Ca, 2012). Turning to SPARQL, this RDF-based query language has capabilities that go beyond the limitations of SQL. In fact, it allows extracting semantic relationships while supporting advanced queries (W3C, 2024).

Furthermore, the semantic web stack, comprising technologies such as RDF, OWL, Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS), and SPARQL, forms the backbone of intelligent web-based systems. These technologies support formal knowledge representation, automated reasoning, and semantic interoperability, all of which are essential for achieving integration across diverse geospatial data sources. Recent advancements in Shapes Constraint Language and SPARQL 1.1 further allow validation and manipulation of semantic data with high precision, making them increasingly important in GIS applications (Buil-Aranda et al., 2013; Omran et al., 2022).

However, the underutilization of these technologies in GIS applications often is unnoticed (Kuo & Chou, 2023). Current systems struggle to effectively combine relational and semantic components, resulting in poor performance and limited capabilities for executing complex queries (Li et al., 2024; Rowland et al., 2020). To address these challenges, we introduced the Well-Architected Semantic GEOframework (WasGeo). WasGeo merges SQL functionality with SPARQL querying capabilities and OWL representation power. It operates on a three-layer architecture that integrates relational databases with semantic queries and ontology-driven reasoning, enhancing the management of geospatial data. The system was designed to execute sophisticated queries that encompass spatial relationships, semantic classifications, and temporal dynamics. WasGeo maintains this capability through efficient data transfer and seamless communication across its multiple layers. By integrating core semantic web components into its architecture, we aimed to have WasGeo bridge the long-standing gap between structured GIS operations and semantic-level reasoning, aligning the system with current trends in knowledge-driven geospatial intelligence.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 21: 1 Issue (2025)
Volume 20: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 19: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2022): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2005)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing