Monitoring and evaluating the quality of Web Map Service resources for optimizing map composition over the internet to support decision making
Introduction
Over the past 10 years, there have been great advancements in the interoperability technologies of geospatial sciences (Yang and Raskin, 2009, Riedel et al., 2009). Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and use this information that has been exchanged (Geraci, 1990). Interoperable systems can communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner that allows the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units (ISO, 2005a). Whereas the interaction between two systems may rely on private protocol (Wu et al., 2005), the interoperability among arbitrary systems is more desirable and must conform to public standards (Gadre et al., 1990). Based on standard protocols, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) has become a major framework for web-based geospatial applications. Foster (2005) even proposed a concept of Service-Oriented Science to suggest that the future of scientific development will be based on this architecture. In this way, tools that were formerly accessible only to the specialists will be available to all. Previous manual data processing and analyzing tasks can be automated through service chaining.
Driven by applications, interoperability between geographic information systems is particularly advantageous. The high cost of geographic data acquisition and the heterogeneous format of different conceptual models create an instant demand for interoperability (Zhang et al., 2007). Interoperability is widely recognized as a new paradigm for integrating distributed and heterogeneous computer systems to facilitate a more efficient use of geographic information resources (Harvey et al., 1999). From inception, industry and academia have attempted to design a widely acceptable conceptual model to unify geographic data interoperability. Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) designed and published abstract and implementation models for manipulating geographic data at the feature level (Kottman and Reed, 2009). The simple feature implementation specifications (OGC, 1999a, OGC, 1999b, OGC, 1999c) have gained wide support from most commercial GIS software developers. For external geographic information exchange, Geography Markup Language (GML) has been developed to act as an open interchange format by encoding a spectrum of geographic application objects and the associated properties (Cox et al., 2002).
Theoretically, these interfaces defined by simple feature specifications and GML are effective and easily integrated into heterogeneous GIS platforms in a local area network (LAN). However, the fast growing popularity of the Internet and loosely coupled SOA applications, such as web mapping and decision support systems, call for more interoperability in the wide-area network (WAN). There is no doubt that the Internet, which has been considered the most revolutionary technology of the latter part of the 20th Century, has fundamentally changed the world of maps (Plewe, 2007). Currently, a very large number of geographic applications require integration over the Internet (Chang and Park, 2004, Nogueras-Iso et al., 2005, Fils et al., 2009). Specifically, the Web Map Service (WMS) (de la Beaujardière, 2006), Web Feature Service (WFS) (Vretanos, 2005), and Web Coverage Service (WCS) (Whiteside and Evans, 2008) have dominated this Internet delivery of geographic information. WMS is a portrayal service, whereas WFS and WCS are geographic data services. Due to a simple design, small number of API functions, and a clear definition of these functions, WMS is now the de facto standard for corresponding modules of mainstream GIS software packages. More than 1000 WMS instances are deployed and maintained by companies, governmental sectors, organizations, and university institutions. By combining layers of spatially referenced data with remotely sensed aerial or satellite images, these high-tech geographers have turned computer mapping into a powerful decision-making tool (Gewin, 2004).
For example, during the recovery stage of a flood disaster, decision makers need to assess damage information about the flooded area. In addition to real-time monitoring information, such as critical infrastructure and water level, background information is needed for effective decision-making. These background data include the use of a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Land use maps, Transportation networks, Populated points, weather forecasts, etc. The background information can be directly adopted from WMS resources available on the Internet to share and reduce the costs of acquiring and maintaining these datasets.
The distribution of geospatial data via the Internet is becoming widespread, but there are many barriers to simple and effective access to geospatial data online (Virrantaus et al., 2009). For this flood disaster scenario, the following issues may arise:
- •
As there are so many land use layers available on the Internet, which one is the most promptly served layer? Which one provides the most useful information for this application?
- •
Should the application server bind to a specific land use layer, dynamically bind to the best land use layer at run-time, or simply provide a series of potentially available land use layers for the users to select?
- •
If a land use layer is bound to an application, how can we deal with the situation that this layer is technically unavailable at run-time? Alternatively, how can we guide users to dynamically select the best land use layer?
These questions are not easily answered. The detailed statistical results of our empirical study of WMS resources in Section 2 further reveal the difficulties and significance of dealing with these issues. Given the current situation of WMS resources, these results demonstrate that it is not easy to obtain a stable combination of map layers from multiple servers.
From a technical point of view, the difficulties of composing a stable map of layers from multiple servers can be easily explained. As an implementation of SOA in geospatial interoperability, OGC Web Service (OWS) architecture observes fundamental principles of SOA based on open standards. Fig. 1 is an interactive model demonstrating these roles in OWS architecture.
When this model is applied to a real application, the application is not robust due to the inconsistency between the actual service and the declared service in the registry. This inconsistency may arise due to the following situations:
- (1)
The information about a service is defined in a capability document, and the system is not sure that this capability document is exactly what the service provides.
- (2)
The metadata of the service provider is in a registry. This registered information may not coincide with the actual service. Alternatively, the service is updated while the metadata is not updated.
- (3)
A service may be registered in several registries that support different standards and reference models. Transformation between these different reference models may generate inconsistency.
- (4)
A deployed service may cease to work for technical reasons (e.g., power failure, corruption of a supported database, and version conflict between modules), but the registry does not typically reflect these interruptions.
As a result, inconsistency between the metadata in the registry and the actual service is very common. Even when inconsistency does not exist, some servers may perform at low efficiency due to other factors. There are many technologies to improve service efficiency, such as cluster and multithread (Yang et al., 2005), Web Map Tiling Service (WMTS), and Web Map Service-Cached (WMS-C). However, all of these services are under control of the host, and clients can do nothing to enhance performance. Network bandwidth and stability also significantly affect the user experience. All of these factors are research considerations in determining the Quality of Geospatial Information Service (QoGIS, Wu and Zhang, 2007, Wu et al., 2005).
However, rich information resources are accessible from various servers with the increasing number of WMS resources available over the Internet. For example, a search for the keyword “elevation” engages 25 servers and 72 layers including http://wms.jpl.nasa.gov/wms.cgi http://giswebservices.massgis.state.ma.us/geoserver/wms. As a result of this process, selection of more valuable and informative service by clients becomes a prominent issue for map composition. Clients face the issue of choosing or creating a composition plan among several possible plans that will satisfy their quality-of-service (QoS) requirements (Ko et al., 2008). However, clients do have the choice of selecting better service while unable to improve these services themselves.
Herein, this paper proposes a system architecture for integrating geographic information services that supports quality selection. This design includes a continuous operating module to monitor and evaluate the quality of registered geographic information services. The result of this monitoring, evaluation, and the associated historical information are stored in the registry. An interface is provided for a client to query the quality of a service online. Based on this interface, any client can bind the best run-time service for best performance.
Section snippets
A quality survey of WMS resources on the Internet
The OGC and ISO/TC211 have published the specifications for three basic service types: WMS, WFS, and WCS. All are designed to deliver geographic information in the web-computing environment. Among these three types, WMS is the most widely accepted due to the vast amount of end users of this service and has very simple interfaces: GetCapabilites, GetMap, and GetFeatureInfo. When a WMS is accessed, the GetCapabilites is usually the first invoked to obtain the service metadata described by an
Quality-supported architecture of Geospatial Information Service
Our philosophy is that a continuous monitoring system and map layer selection mechanism based on quality are the best way of composing maps, as the quality of WMSs is not guaranteed. We propose architecture with built-in quality monitoring and evaluation modules to allow clients to query current and historical quality records for optimizing map composition to support decision making.
Monitoring and evaluation of service quality
Fig. 8 illustrates the workflow of the monitoring and evaluating modules proposed in this paper. A queue is maintained to manage the next check appointments (NCA) of registered WMSs. The initial NCA of a WMS is set to the time when it is registered. QM keeps picking up the first WMS in this queue to monitor. Once the QM finishes monitoring a WMS, this WMS is sent to the Quality-Evaluating Module (QE). Meanwhile, a new NCA is set for this WMS right before it is inserted back into the queue
Prototype systems
The proposed evaluating and monitoring method of WMS quality applies to many areas. Three prototype systems based on these evaluating and monitoring services were developed to demonstrate the mechanism of optimized map composition.
Conclusions and discussion
A vast amount of WMS resources are available on the Internet today. Whereas more geospatial information will be available through web service due to the global nature of the Internet, intelligent and selective use of these resources is desirable for decision-making. The philosophy and methodology developed in this study increase the usability of geospatial applications on the Internet.
The key contribution of this paper is to bring quality of service to web map services. By combining the
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by 863 program 2007AA12Z217, Natural Science Foundation 40971211, and an FGDC NSDI portal project G09AC00103. Thanks to Mr. Steve McClure for language assistance.
References (34)
- et al.
Development of a web-based geographic information system for the management of borehole and geological data
Computers & Geosciences
(2004) - Cox, S., Daisey, P., Lake, R., Portele, C., Whiteside, A. (Eds.), 2002. OpenGIS Geography Markup Language (GML)...
- de la Beaujardière, J. (Ed.), 2006. OpenGIS Web Map Server Implementation Specification v1.3.0. OGC 06-042. Open...
- et al.
CHRONOS architecture: experiences with an open-source services-oriented architecture for geoinformatics
Computers & Geosciences
(2009) Service-oriented science
Science
(2005)- et al.
A COS study of OSI interoperability
Computer Standards and Interfaces
(1990) IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries
(1990)Mapping opportunities
Nature
(2004)- et al.
Semantic interoperability: a central issue for sharing geographic information
Annals of Regional Science
(1999) Geographic Information—Metadata, ISO 19115:2003
(2003)
Geographic Information—Services, ISO 19119:2005
Quality Management Systems—Fundamentals and Vocabulary, ISO 9000:2005
Quality-of-service oriented web service composition algorithm and planning architecture
Journal of Systems and Software
OGC Catalogue Services—ebRIM (ISO/TS 15000-3) Profile of CSW v0.9.1. OGC 04-017rl
OGC Catalog Services: a key element for the development of spatial data infrastructures
Computers & Geosciences
Cited by (47)
TubeDB: An on-demand processing database system for climate station data
2021, Computers and GeosciencesCitation Excerpt :Stations can be visualised on geographic background maps, which are connected by user-specified URLs implementing OpenGIS Web Map Services (WMS4), Web Map Tile Services (WMTS5), or XYZ services6 with the default set to OpenStreetMap7 in TubeDB. Especially WMS support allows users to combine climate data with various map-based information (Wu et al., 2011) and ultimately to assist in decision-making approaches. The inspection section provides detailed up-to-date information regarding the status of the climate stations in the network.
Investigating metrics of geospatial web services: The case of a CEOS federated catalog service for earth observation data
2016, Computers and GeosciencesCitation Excerpt :The issues related to quality of this kind of service have been addressed by many researchers. From the perspective of service consumers, Zhang et al. (2010) used metrics of precision and recall to evaluate WFS query results; Horák et al. (2011) measured response time, error occurrence, availability, and performance of WMS services by repeating same requests; Wu et al. (2011) presented a new approach to monitor and assess quality of WMS services and developed a mechanism to choose better map layers for decision making support; Gui et al. (2013) leveraged Geospatial Cyber-infrastructure (GCI) components to build a search engine framework for geospatial resources discovery and registry, and developed a quality monitoring and evaluation module to assess accessibility and performance of registered OGC data services. In addition, Giuliani et al. (2013) proposed a new approach to evaluate performance of WFS and WCS services on the server side and provided service providers with guidance on service quality improvement.
Polar CI Portal: A Cloud-Based Polar Resource Discovery Engine
2016, Cloud Computing in Ocean and Atmospheric SciencesResearch progress on geospatial service web and gollaboration
2022, Cehui Xuebao/Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica SinicaWebGIS: Status, Trends and Potential Uptake in Agroecology
2022, Drones and Geographical Information Technologies in Agroecology and Organic Farming: Contributions to Technological SovereigntyA Raster Tile Calculation Model Combined with Map Service
2021, Journal of Geo-Information Science