A Reputation Model of OSM Contributor Based on Semantic Similarity of Ontology Concepts

Abstract

Due to their status as non-professionals, the reputations of Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) contributors have a very important impact on data quality. In the process of contributor reputation evaluation in OpenStreetMap (OSM), it is very difficult to calculate the semantic similarity between object versions contributed by volunteers. Aimed at this issue, this paper proposes a model of contributor’s reputation based on semantic similarity of ontology concepts. Firstly, contributors are classified into three categories based on an improved WPCA and classification method. Then, an initial reputation is set for every OSM user in each class according to these categories and related research. Secondly, the related concept ontology is constructed for OSM entities; then, the semantic similarity of the object version is calculated according to the similarity of concept attributes and the semantic distance of concept. The contributor’s evaluation reputation is computed by synthesizing the semantic similarity, geometric similarity, and topological similarity of object versions. Thirdly, the contributor’s evaluation reputation and the initial reputation is aggregated to obtain the contributor’s reputation; finally, the OSM data of Rutland, England, is used as an example to verify the validity of our model. The experimental results show that the proposed model can obtain a more comprehensive contributor’s evaluation by fusing with the semantic similarity of ontology concept. The evaluation bias caused only by the semantic change between versions can be eliminated. Moreover, the obtained user’s reputation is positively correlated with the data quality. The contributor’s reputation evaluation method proposed in this paper is an effective method for evaluating the contributor’s reputation in OSM-like systems.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.