skip to main content
survey

A Survey of Ontologies for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping in Mobile Robots

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 September 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Autonomous robots are playing important roles in academic, technological, and scientific activities. Thus, their behavior is getting more complex, particularly, in tasks related to mapping an environment and localizing themselves. These tasks comprise the Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) problem. Representation of knowledge related to the SLAM problem with a standard, flexible, and well-defined model, provides the base to develop efficient and interoperable solutions. As many existing works demonstrate, Semantic Web seems to be a clear approach, since they have formulated ontologies, as the base data model to represent such knowledge. In this article, we survey the most popular and recent SLAM ontologies with our aim being threefold: (i) propose a classification of SLAM ontologies according to the main knowledge needed to model the SLAM problem; (ii) identify existing ontologies for classifying, comparing, and contrasting them, in order to conceptualize SLAM domain for mobile robots; and (iii) pin-down lessons to learn from existing solutions in order to design better solutions and identify new research directions and further improvements. We compare the identified SLAM ontologies according to the proposed classification and, finally, we explore new data fields to enrich existing ontologies and highlight new possibilities in terms of performance and efficiency for SLAM solutions.

References

  1. Julita Bermejo Alonso, Ricardo Sanz Bravo, Manuel Rodríguez, and Carlos Hernández Corbato. 2011. Engineering an ontology for autonomous systems - The OASys ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, KEOD. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Alemania, 47--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen. 2004. Web Ontology Language: OWL. In: Handbook on Ontologies. Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. T. Bailey and H. Durrant-Whyte. 2006. Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): Part II. Proceedings of the IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine 13, 3 (Sep. 2006), 108--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Lamia Belouaer, Maroua Bouzid, and Abdel-Illah Mouaddib. 2010. Ontology based spatial planning for human-robot interaction. In Proceeding of the 17th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, Vol. 1. 103--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific American 284, 5 (2001), 34--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, and M. McCahill. 1994. RFC1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL). https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.17487/RFC1738.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, Michael Sperberg-McQueen, Eve Maler, and Franois Yergeau. 2000. Extensible markup language (XML) 1.0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Stefan Brunner, Markus Kucera, and Thomas Waas. 2017. Ontologies used in robotics: A survey with an outlook for automated driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES). 81--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Guy Burroughes and Yang Gao. 2016. Ontology-based self-reconfiguring guidance, navigation, and control for planetary rovers. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems 13 (2016), 316--328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Joel Carbonera, Sandro Fiorini, Edson Prestes, Vitor Jorge, Mara Abel, Raj Madhavan, Angela Locoro, Paulo Gonçalves, Tamas Haidegger, and Craig Schlenoff. 2013. Defining positionig in a core ontology for robotics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 1867--1872.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael Cashmore, Maria Fox, Derek Long, Daniele Magazzeni, Bram Ridder, Arnau Carrera, N. Palomeras, N. Hurtós, and Marc Carreras. 2015. Rosplan: Planning in the robot operating system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS. 333--341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Doo Soo Chang, Gun Hee Cho, and Yong Suk Choi. 2020. Ontology-based knowledge model for human-robot interactive services. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 2029--2038.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark Coeckelbergh, Cristina Pop, Ramona Simut, Andreea Peca, Sebastian Pintea, Daniel David, and Bram Vanderborght. 2016. A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with ASD: Ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Science and Engineering Ethics 22, 1 (2016), 47--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Jonathan Crespo, R. Barber, and O. M. Mozos. 2017. Relational model for robotic semantic navigation in indoor environments. Journal of Intelligent 8 Robotic Systems 86, 3–4 (2017), 617--639.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonathan Crespo, Jose Carlos Castillo, Oscar Mozos, and Ramón Barber. 2020. Semantic information for robot navigation: A survey. Applied Sciences 10, 2 (2020), 497.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Matthew Crosby, Ronald P. A. Petrick, Francesco Rovida, and Volker Krueger. 2017. Integrating mission and task planning in an industrial robotics framework. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Henning Deeken, Thomas Wiemann, and Joachim Hertzberg. 2018. Grounding semantic maps in spatial databases. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 105 (2018), 146--165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Saadia Dhouib, Nicolas Du Lac, Jean-Loup Farges, Sébastien Gerard, Miniar Hemaissia-Jeannin, Juan Lahera-Perez, Stéphane Millet, Bruno Patin, and Serge Stinckwich. 2011. Control architecture concepts and properties of an ontology devoted to exchanges in mobile robotics. In Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Control Architectures of Robot. 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hugh Durrant-Whyte and Tim Bailey. 2006. Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I. Proceedings of the IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine 13, 2, 99--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mohamad Eid, Ramiro Liscano, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2007. A universal ontology for sensor networks data. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Measurement Systems and Applications. 59--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. R. Gayathri and V. Uma. 2018. Ontology based knowledge representation technique, domain modeling languages and planners for robotic path planning: A survey. ICT Express 4, 2 (2018), 69--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Oguzhan Guclu and Ahmet Burak Can. 2019. Fast and effective loop closure detection to improve SLAM performance. Journal of Intelligent 8 Robotic Systems 93, 3 (2019), 495--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tamás Haidegger, Marcos Barreto, Paulo Gonçalves, Maki K. Habib, Sampath Kumar Veera Ragavan, Howard Li, Alberto Vaccarella, Roberta Perrone, and Edson Prestes. 2013. Applied ontologies and standards for service robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61, 11 (2013), 1215--1223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. José A. Castellanos, Henry Carrillo, and Ian Reid. 2012. On the comparison of uncertainty criteria for active SLAM. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2080--2087.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Félix Ingrand and Malik Ghallab. 2017. Deliberation for autonomous robots: A survey. Artificial Intelligence 247 (2017), 10--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll. 2004. Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ioannis Kostavelis and Antonios Gasteratos. 2015. Semantic mapping for mobile robotics tasks: A survey. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 66 (2015), 86--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ruijiao Li, Lai Wei, Dongbing Gu, Huosheng Hu, and Klaus D. McDonald-Maier. 2013. Multi-layered map based navigation and interaction for an intelligent wheelchair. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). 115--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. G. H. Lim, I. H. Suh, and H. Suh. 2011. Ontology-based unified robot knowledge for service robots in indoor environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 41, 3 (May 2011), 492--509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Oscar Martınez Mozos, Patric Jensfelt, Hendrik Zender, Geert-Jan M. Kruijff, and Wolfram Burgard. 2007. From labels to semantics: An integrated system for conceptual spatial representations of indoor environments for mobile robots. In Proceedings of the ICRA Workshop: Semantic Information in Robotics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Dejan Pangercic, Benjamin Pitzer, Moritz Tenorth, and Michael Beetz. 2012. Semantic object maps for robotic housework - Representation, acquisition and use. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 4644--4651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. David Paulius and Yu Sun. 2018. A survey of knowledge representation and retrieval for learning in service robotics. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1807.02192 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Liam Paull, Gaetan Severac, Guilherme V. Raffo, Julian Mauricio Angel, Harold Boley, Phillip J. Durst, Wendell Gray, Maki Habib, Bao Nguyen, S. Veera Ragavan, et al. 2012. Towards an ontology for autonomous robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 1359--1364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Edson Prestes, Joel Luis Carbonera, Sandro Rama Fiorini, Vitor A. M. Jorge, Mara Abel, Raj Madhavan, Angela Locoro, Paulo Goncalves, Marcos E. Barreto, Maki Habib, et al. 2013. Towards a core ontology for robotics and automation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61, 11 (2013), 1193--1204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Andrzej Pronobis and Patric Jensfelt. 2011. Multi-modal semantic mapping. In Proceedings of the RSS Workshop on Grounding Human-Robot Dialog for Spatial Tasks, Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Francisco Ramos, Andrés S. Vázquez, Raúl Fernández, and Alberto Olivares-Alarcos. 2018. Ontology based design, control and programming of modular robots. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering 25, 2 (2018), 173--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Luis Riazuelo, Moritz Tenorth, Daniel Di Marco, Marta Salas, Dorian Gálvez-López, Lorenz Mösenlechner, Lars Kunze, Michael Beetz, Juan D. Tardós, Luis Montano, et al. 2015. RoboEarth semantic mapping: A cloud enabled knowledge-based approach. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 12, 2 (2015), 432--443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. María L. Rodríguez-Arévalo, José Neira, and José A. Castellanos. 2018. On the importance of uncertainty representation in active SLAM. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34, 3 (2018), 829--834.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Zeyn Saigol, Bram Ridder, Minlue Wang, Richard Dearden, Maria Fox, Nick Hawes, David M. Lane, and Derek Long. 2015. Efficient search for known objects in unknown environments using autonomous indoor robots. In Proceedings of the IROS Workshop on Task Planning for Intelligent Robots in Service and Manufacturing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Craig Schlenoff and Elena Messina. 2005. A robot ontology for urban search and rescue. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Research in Knowledge Representation for Autonomous Systems (KRAS’05). New York, NY, 27--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Muhammad Sualeh and Gon-Woo Kim. 2019. Simultaneous localization and mapping in the epoch of semantics: A survey. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems 17, 3 (2019), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Il Hong Suh, Gi Hyun Lim, Wonil Hwang, Hyowon Suh, Jung-Hwa Choi, and Young-Tack Park. 2007. Ontology-based multi-layered robot knowledge framework (OMRKF) for robot intelligence. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 429--436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Xiaolei Sun, Yu Zhang, and Jing Chen. 2019. High-level smart decision making of a robot based on ontology in a search and rescue scenario. Future Internet 11, 11 (2019), 230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Moritz Tenorth and Michael Beetz. 2013. KnowRob: A knowledge processing infrastructure for cognition-enabled robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research 32, 5 (2013), 566--590.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Sebastian Thrun. 2003. Exploring artificial intelligence in the new millennium. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, Chapter Robotic Mapping: A Survey, 1--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Tingqi Wang and Qijun Chen. 2011. Object semantic map representation for indoor mobile robots. In Proceedings of the International Conference on System Science and Engineering. 309--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Hao Wu, Guo-hui Tian, Yan Li, Feng-yu Zhou, and Peng Duan. 2014. Spatial semantic hybrid map building and application of mobile service robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 62, 6 (2014), 923--941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Kai M. Wurm, Armin Hornung, Maren Bennewitz, Cyrill Stachniss, and Wolfram Burgard. 2010. OctoMap: A probabilistic, flexible, and compact 3D map representation for robotic systems. In Proceedings of the ICRA Workshop on Best Practice in 3D Perception and Modeling for Mobile Manipulation, Vol. 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Stefan Zander, Nadia Ahmed, and Matthias T. Frank. 2016. A survey about the usage of semantic technologies for the description of robotic components and capabilities. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Science, Application and Methods in Industry 4.0 co-located with (i-KNOW 2016). Graz, Austria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Liang Zhao, Shoudong Huang, and Gamini Dissanayake. 2019. Linear SLAM: Linearising the SLAM problems using submap joining. Automatica 100 (2019), 231--246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A Survey of Ontologies for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping in Mobile Robots

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Computing Surveys
            ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 53, Issue 5
            September 2021
            782 pages
            ISSN:0360-0300
            EISSN:1557-7341
            DOI:10.1145/3426973
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2020 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 28 September 2020
            • Accepted: 1 June 2020
            • Revised: 1 April 2020
            • Received: 1 September 2019
            Published in csur Volume 53, Issue 5

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • survey
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format