This work aims to develop an ontological data model to support urban flood disaster response. The preliminary studies of the existing flood ontologies revealed that the developed ontologies do not express the relationships between the different levels of administration involved during flood disasters. So, an ontology named Flood Disaster Support Ontology (FDSO) was developed. The FDSO acts as a data model that can accommodate the various organisations and agents of different levels of the administrative agencies that are part of the flood disaster management process. It depicts their relationships and their activities specifically during an urban flood disaster response. The ontology also organises the resources and the information about them that are possessed by different organisations and may be used by first responders to carry out the activities such as rescue and relief. An amalgamation of two existing methodologies Yet Another Methodology for Ontology Development (YAMO) and NeOn was used to construct the ontology. The ontology was evaluated syntactically using reasoners along with the OOPS!, an OntOlogy pitfall scanner, whereas the semantic evaluation was done through SPARQL queries. The process yielded satisfactory results.
MohantyMPMudgilSKarmakarS. Flood management in India: a focussed review on the current status and future challenges. Int J Disast Risk Reduct2020; 49: 101660.
XuWZlatanovaS. Ontologies for disaster management response. In: LiJZlatanovaSFabbriAG (eds) Geomatics solutions for disaster management: lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp. 185–200.
10.
KhantongSSharifMNMahmoodAK. An ontology for sharing and managing information in disaster response: an illustrative case study of flood evacuation. Int Rev Appl Sci Eng2020; 18: 22–33.
11.
OthmanSHBeydounG. Metamodelling approach to support disaster management knowledge sharing. In: Proceedings of the 21st Australasian conference on information systems, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 1–3December2010.
12.
GruberTR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquisit1993; 5: 199–220.
13.
DuttaBGiunchigliaFMalteseV. A facet-based methodology for geo-spatial modeling. In: Proceedings of the international conference on geospatial semantics, Brest, 12–13 May 2011, pp. 133–150. Berlin: Springer.
14.
ElmhadhbiLKarrayMHArchimèdeB, et al. An ontological approach to enhancing information sharing in disaster response. Information2021; 12(10): 432.
15.
NorwawiNMMahamudKRDerisSM. Multiagent decision support for flood emergency management. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asia Pacific decision sciences institute conference (APDSI2002), Bangkok, Thailand, 24–27 July 2002, pp. 1–10. Houston, TX: Decision Sciences Institute.
16.
DolbearCGoodwinJMizenH, et al. Semantic interoperability between topographic data and a flood defence ontology. Southampton: Ordnance Survey Research & Innovation, 2005.
17.
MongulaDB. Enterprise ontology of the flood control domain. MSc Thesis, Information System Design Group, Faculty of EEMCS, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2009.
18.
KatukNKu-MahamudKRNorwawiN, et al. Web-based support system for flood response operation in Malaysia. Disast Prevent Manage2009; 18: 327–337.
19.
GarridoJRequenaIMambrettiS. Semantic model for flood management. J Hydroinform2012; 14(4): 918–936.
20.
García-CastroRCorchoOHillC. A core ontological model for semantic sensor web infrastructures. Int J Semant Web Inform Syst2012; 8(1): 22–42.
21.
YiSSunY. Upper level ontology and integration assessment modeling in digital watershed. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on geoinformatics, Kaifeng, China, 20–22 June 2013, pp. 6–11. New York: IEEE.
22.
ScheuerSHaaseDMeyerV. Towards a flood risk assessment ontology – knowledge integration into a multi-criteria risk assessment approach. Comput Environ Urban Syst2013; 37: 82–94.
23.
ShanSYanQ. ERDSS key technologies. In: ShanSYanQ (eds) Emergency response decision support system. Singapore: Springer, 2017, pp. 29–60.
24.
AgrestaAFattorusoGPollinoM, et al. An ontology framework for flooding forecasting. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational science and its applications, Guimarães, 30 June–3 July 2014, pp. 417–428. Cham: Springer.
25.
AlmagrabiALokeSWTorabiT. Spatial relations in contextual information for mobile emergency messaging. In: GuoBRiboniDHuP (eds) Creating personal, social, and urban awareness through pervasive computing. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2014, pp. 274–298.
26.
DingYZhuQLinH. An integrated virtual geographic environmental simulation framework: a case study of flood disaster simulation. Geospat Inform Sci2014; 17(4): 190–200.
27.
RollerRRoesJVerbreeE. Benefits of linked data for interoperability during crisis management. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spat Inform Sci2015; 40(3): 211.
28.
SunJDe SousaGRousseyC, et al. Intelligent flood adaptive context-aware system: how wireless sensors adapt their configuration based on environmental phenomenon events. Sens Trans2016; 206(11): 68–81.
29.
WangCChenZChenN, et al. A hydrological sensor web ontology based on the SSN ontology: a case study for a flood. ISPRS Int J Geoinform2017; 247(1): 2.
30.
KurteKRDurbhaSSKingRL, et al. A spatio-temporal ontological model for flood disaster monitoring. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), Fort Worth, TX, 23–28 July 2017, pp. 5213–5216. New York: IEEE.
31.
SermetYDemirI. Towards an information centric flood ontology for information management and communication. Earth Sci Inform2019; 12(4): 541–551.
32.
WuZShenYWangH, et al. An ontology-based framework for heterogeneous data management and its application for urban flood disasters. Earth Sci Inform2020; 13(2): 377–390.
33.
MughalMHShaikhZAWaganAI, et al. ORFFM: an ontology-based semantic model of river flow and flood mitigation. IEEE Access2021; 9: 44003–44031.
34.
XiangZDemirI. Flood markup language – a standards-based exchange language for flood risk communication. Environ Model Softw2022; 152: 105397.
35.
Suárez-FigueroaMCGómez-PérezAFernandez-LopezM. The NeOn methodology framework: a scenario-based methodology for ontology development. Appl Ontol2015; 10(2): 107–145.
36.
DuttaBChatterjeeUMadalliDP. YAMO: yet another methodology for large-scale faceted ontology construction. J Knowl Manage2015; 19(1): 6–24.
37.
SinhaPKDuttaBVaradarajanU. Ranking the ontology development methodologies using the weighted decision matrix. Data Technol Appl2022; 56(5): 686–719.
38.
Poveda-VillalónMGómez-PérezASuárez-FigueroaMC. OOPS! (Ontology Pitfall Scanner!): an on-line tool for ontology evaluation. Int J Semant Web Inform Syst2014; 10(2): 7–34.
39.
NoyNFMcGuinnessDL. Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, 2001.
40.
RanganathanSR. Prolegomena to library classification. Chennai, India: Madras Library Association, 1937.
41.
BannourWMaalelABen GhezalaHH. Ontology-based representation of crisis response situations. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computational collective intelligence, Hendaye, 4–6 September 2019, pp. 417–427. Cham: Springer.
42.
BrankJGrobelnikMMladenicD. A survey of ontology evaluation techniques. In: Proceedings of the conference on data mining and data warehouses, Ljubljana, 11–17 October 2005, pp. 166–170. Ljubljana: Information Society, SiKDD.
