This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x

An Ontology for Satellite Databases
Robert J. ROVETTOa, b, 1,2
a,
b

Research Affiliate, Center for Orbital Debris Education and Research (CODER), University of Maryland

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Datanauts, 2017

Abstract. This paper demonstrates the development of ontology for satellite databases. First, I create a computational ontology for the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS) Satellite Database (UCSSD for short), called the UCS Satellite Ontology (or UCSSO). Second, in developing
UCSSO I show that The Space Situational Awareness Ontology (SSAO)-—an existing space domain reference ontology—-and related ontology
work by the author (Rovetto 2015, 2016) can be used either (i) with a database-specific local ontology such as UCSSO, or (ii) in its stead. In case
(i), local ontologies such as UCSSO can reuse SSAO terms, perform term mappings, or extend it. In case (ii), the author_s orbital space ontology
work, such as the SSAO, is usable by the UCSSD and organizations with other space object catalogs, as a reference ontology suite providing a
common semantically-rich domain model. The SSAO, UCSSO, and the broader Orbital Space Environment Domain Ontology project is online at
https://purl.org/space-ontology and GitHub. This ontology effort aims, in part, to provide accurate formal representations of the domain for
various applications. Ontology engineering has the potential to facilitate the sharing and integration of satellite data from federated databases and
sensors for safer spaceflight.
Keywords. Astroinformatics, Informatics , Space domain ontology , Space situational awareness, Space object, Satellite data ,Orbital space
environment, Datamodel, Union of concerned scientists, Knowledge engineering, Ontologies, Data fusion, Knowledge representation,
Knowledge management, Aerospace computing

1. Introduction
This paper demonstrates the development of ontology for satellite databases. First, I develop a
computational ontology for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Satellite Database (Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) [1]) (UCSSD for short), called the UCS Satellite Ontology (or UCSSO). Second, in developing the
UCSSO I show that the Space Situational Awareness Ontology (SSAO) [5](Rovetto and Kelso 2016)—an existing
domain reference ontology—and related ontology work by the author [9,8,6,5,4] can be used either (i) with a
database-specific local ontology such as UCSSO, or (ii) in its stead. In case (i), ontologies such as UCSSO can reuse
SSAO terms, or map their own terms to it. In case (ii), the author_s space domain ontology work is usable by the
UCSSD and organizations with other space object catalogs as a general reference ontology providing a common
semantically-rich domain model. The SSAO, UCSSO, and the broader Orbital Space Environment Domain
Ontology project is online via http://purl.org/space-ontology./3.
With further development, this ongoing work serves as a case study and proof-of-concept for ontology
engineering for space situational awareness (SSA) data in general, and for the orbital space ontology project
(Rovetto 2016a). The aim is not simply to represent and conceptually analyze astrodynamic, astronautical and SSA
entities in a formal and high-level manner. The project aims also to better manage, represent and reason over space
data; facilitate knowledge sharing; improve SSA for safer spaceflight, and determine if ontology engineering can in
fact do so. It should therefore be of interest to astroinformaticists [17](Borne 2010), SSA professionals, satellite
operators, database administrators, philosophers, ontology engineers and computer scientists.
Specific goals for these ontologies are at least two-fold. One is to represent the realities of the domain:
satellites, other space objects, their interactions and environments, orbits, etc. Two, to facilitate data exchange,
integration, search; knowledge modeling, and semantic interoperability among federated space object databases and
sensors. Ontology-based data queries, for instance, involve searches for satellites satisfying certain criteria. Potential
answers may yield useful or novel information about a particular satellite, or satellite populations, their behavior,
and orbital characteristics.
A computational ontology [13][15] consists of a set of defined class and relationship terms that are given a
formally specified semantics. Ontologies represent the content and structure of a subject matter (domain)[14], focus
on meaning of that content (and data), and are intended to communicate some understanding, common knowledge or
conceptualization of that domain. Consider general knowledge of astrodynamics shared among satellite operators, as
1

Emails: rrovetto@terpalum.umd.edu (ontologos@yahoo.com)
This paper and the author’s referenced papers are independent work, not undertaken with or at the author’s current or past affiliations.
3
Orbital Space Domain Ontology project landing page: http://purl.org/space-ontology.
UCSSO is at http://purl.org/space-ontology/ucsso/. The SSAO is at http://purl.org/space-ontology/ssao.
2

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
well as generic categories/concepts such as Satellite, Orbit, Inclination, etc. A taxonomy, by contrast, consists of a
set of undefined terms typically structured according to a child-parent or class-subclass relation. Ontologies have
taxonomies as proper parts, but take the extra step to make implicit meaning (such as definitions and assumptions)
formally explicit. This affords the specification of various relations between classes to more accurately represent the
actual relationships between domain objects. In short, ―[o]ntologies provide […] terms, their meanings, their
relations and constraints, etc.‖ to model a domain [16]. Another goal is therefore the development of coherent and
accurate space vocabularies.
Database schemas, by contrast, define the structure and constraints of data/databases [14], focusing on data
rather than what the data is about. Meaning for schemas is captured in data-dictionaries, normally separate from the
schema, but which rarely change as the database changes. Ontologies, by contrast, change as databases do and as
new knowledge is discovered. In other words, the information in a data-dictionary is effectively integrated into the
ontology resulting in both a human and machine readable artifact. Ontologies and databases focus on general
categories/classes and instances (of classes), respectively. The UCSSD, for example, stores instance data on over
1000 operational satellites, and ―[t]he data in the UCS Satellite Database come from public sources, with much of
the information provided by the satellite owners themselves"[2]. Ontologies adopt the open world assumption,
whereas schemas adopt the closed world assumption—this is important because queries may yield different answers.
Both employ knowledge representation languages, such as Common Logic Interchange Format (CLIF)[19], and the
Web Ontology Language (OWL)[20]. Ontologies can require more computing power depending on their complexity
and can present challenges with scalability [21], but they provide a richer representation of the domain and the data.
Additionally, ontologies effectively reduce the programming complexity by effectively taking the domain model out
of code. With an ontology-based information system, users are afforded a means for knowledge discovery and
decision-support. Table 1 summarizes key features of ontologies.
Common Domain or
Application Vocabulary:
Structured Terminology:
Formally defined terms:
Presents a domain or
application model:
Scalability & Reusability:
Analysis

A system of interrelated categories: general but domain-specific terms
Class-subsumption & other relations between category terms
Natural language
Artificial language definitions
Rules, Logical
definitions
(ontology language, e.g., CLIF, OWL)
Axioms
Common knowledge
Expresses meaning.
model of the domain
Represents real-world domain phenomena.
Other ontologies can
Federated databases can use with their own ontologies, or as theirs
import or extend
(i & ii, above)
Reason over, and query the information (e.g., SPARQL, SWRL, DL Query, etc.)

Table 1. Some Central features of an ontology

The next section describes the UCSSO taxonomy, terms of which correspond to both UCSSD terms [3] and
domain-specific categories. UCSSD terms along with their matching ontology classes are discussed. Section 3
introduces the SSA Ontology, the Orbital Debris Ontology (ODO), the space ontology project of which they are a
part; demonstrates the overlap with UCSSO. UCSSO classes are either found within the SSAO (and related
ontologies by the author), or can be mapped to them. The SSAO is therefore offered as a domain ontology for the
UCSSD and other satellite databases in the SSA and astronomy communities. Section 4 points to content in the
domain that is in need of formalization, and 5 mentions future work.
2. Translating Database Terms to Ontology Terms
The UCSSD houses information about actual satellites: their names, national origins, orbital data, sources
of data, etc. One option for ontological categories and characterizations of this information are as follows: satellite
names are types of identifiers, national origins are social or political features, and orbital characteristics are physical
and/or geometric properties (relational or otherwise).
Table 2 lists the field terms from the UCSSD file [3], their corresponding ontology classes, and a
description/comment. Classes are implicitly structured with the is a class-subclass relation, are camel-cased with
underscores separating words and occasionally in bold in the main text of the paper. Indentation signifies classsubsumption. Relational terms are italicized in text with underscores as well.4 In conjunction with a formalized
semantics (definitions, constraints, logical axioms, rules, etc.), they are intended to represent the kinds and

4

Relational terms are called Object Properties or Data Properties in the Protégé ontology editor, the latter of which takes some alpha-numerical
value as one relatum or argument. Non-relational categories are called classes.

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
relationships found in the real-world domain of artificial satellites. Definitions are drawn from the UCSSD Manual
[22] where possible, and satellite and astrodynamics literature, space thesauri, or other references as needed.
Some database terms are resolved into one or more classes and related with a relational term. This more
precisely captures the domain reality by making ontological and conceptual distinctions explicit. Note that different
taxonomies and classifications are possible. I provide one option. No claims to completeness are made, and the
ontologies described or mentioned in this communication are works in progress. Figure 1 displays all classes using
the OntoGraf plugin in the Protégé ontology editor [23]. Finally, although I do not do so here, formalizing
supplemental information from the UCSSD comment field should make the ontology richer because it contains
partonomic and other details of the individual satellites.
DATABASE TERM/FIELD

ONTOLOGY TERM
(CLASS)

Name of Satellite,
Alternate Names

Country/Org of UN Registry

Country of Operator/Owner
Operator/Owner

Users

Purpose
Detailed Purpose
Class of Orbit
Type of Orbit
Longitude of GEO (degrees)
Perigee (km)
Apogee (km)

Resolved into two classes
Satellite_Name
The current, primary, name of the satellite.
Alternate_Satellite_Name
Past names, or synonyms.
Resolved into Country and Organization classes, and the following relations:
is_registered_country_in_UN_Register_of_Space_Objects and
is_registered_organization_in_UN_Register_of_Space_Objects
Resolved into classes: Country, Operator, Owner;
and relations: has_Operator, has_Owner, and has_Country_of_Origin
Resolved into two ontology classes
Operator
The operator of the satellite
Owner
The owner of the satellite
User
Class of satellite user, reflecting the sector of society using the satellite,
Civil_User
or the sector a satellite is designed to serve.
Academic_User
E.g. A satellite is used by civil, commercial, governmental, military
Amateur_User
users, etc.
Commercial_User
Government_User
Military_User
Purpose
May also be represented by the class, Function.
<sub-classes below in Fig.3>
Orbit
<sub-classes below in Fig.2>

Purpose hierarchy formed. Resolved with subclasses of Purpose class
Orbit hierarchy formed. Resolved with Orbit class and subclasses
Merged into sub-classes of Orbit.

Longitude_Of_GEO
Longitude_Of_GEO_value
Perigee
Perigee_value
Apogee
Apogee_value

Eccentricity

Orbital_Eccentricity

Inclination (degrees)

Orbital_Eccentricity_value
Orbital_Inclination

Period (minutes)

Orbital_Inclination_value
Orbital_Period

Launch Mass (kg.)
Dry Mass (kg.)
Power (watts)
Date of Launch
Expected Lifetime
Contractor
Country of Contractor
Launch Site
Launch Vehicle
COSPAR Number
NORAD Number
Comments

COMMENT / DESCRIPTION

Orbital_Period_value
Launch_Mass
Dry_Mass
Artificial_Satellite_Power
Launch_Date
Satellite_Expected_Lifetime
Contractor
Launch_Site
Launch_Vehicle
COSPAR_Number
NORAD_Number
Satellite_Comment

A numerical value with unit of measure in degrees
A numerical value with unit of measure in Kilometer (km)
A class whose instances are particular apogees (of a specific numeric
value for the spatial distance) of individual satellites.
A numerical value with unit of measure in Kilometer
A class whose instances are particular eccentricities (of a specific
numeric value) of individual satellites.
A decimal value less than or equal to 1 but not below 0.
A class whose instances are particular inclinations (of a specific value)
of individual satellites.
Angular measure in degrees.
A class whose instances are particular periods (of a specific temporal
duration) of individual satellites.
Time interval in minutes.
A numerical value with unit of measure in Kilogram (kg)
A numerical value with unit of measure in Kilogram
A numerical value with unit of measure in watts
Numerical date value
Time interval: numerical value with unit of measure in years
A social organization, agency, company, institution, etc. that
Resolved into Contractor class and has_Country_of_Origin relation
A socio-political site or geographic location, such as a city
A type of vehicle used to help insert the satellite into orbit
Alphanumeric string
Alphanumeric string
Alphanumeric string containing supplemental or descriptive information

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
about the satellite, e.g., satellite systems, components, functions, it‘s
place in constellation, etc.
Table 2: UCS Database terms and their corresponding ontology classes with description.

Figure 1. OntoGraf depiction of class (circles) hierarchy with instances (diamonds) using Protégé.

2.1 Orbit Taxonomy & Orbital Properties
The UCSSD distinguishes between Class of orbit and Type of orbit. Generally speaking there are various
ways to categorize orbits, but I have not kept this particular distinction. Rather, I created a single Orbit hierarchy
(figure 2) by merging the respective sub-classes and sub-types according to the description in the UCS manual. The
hierarchy reflects only those orbits mentioned in the UCSSD. 5 If the classification proves to be insufficient, i.e., if
the orbit class vs. type distinction is needed, the respective classes and relations can be added to the ontology. The
primary orbital feature differentiating the two main orbit categories—Elliptical Orbit and Nearly Circular
Orbit—is orbital eccentricity. It describes the shape of an orbit, and is one of the Keplerian Orbital Elements or
Parameters, here subsumed as a type of Orbital_Property.

5

As such, drift orbits and orbits at Lagrange points are not included, orbits that must be (and are) represented in a more complete domain
ontology (e.g., the SSAO[5]).

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x

Figure 2. Screenshot of Orbit and Orbital Property classes of UCSSO, displayed in Protégé ontology editor.

Two slightly different ways to model the relationship between orbits, satellites and orbital parameters are as
follows. First, I assert classes for each orbital parameter (e.g. Orbital Eccentricity). Their instances are added,
representing each particular parameter for an individual satellite (e.g., AAUSat-4_Orbital Eccentricity). I also add
classes of satellites based on their function as described in UCSSD (e.g., Earth-Observing_Satellite) with instances
representing each individual satellite (e.g., AAUSat4). Satellite and parameter instances are related via orbital
parameter Object Property relations (e.g., has_Orbital_Eccentricity) (listed in section 2.4). Orbital parameter
instances are then related to a numeric value via a Data Property relation (e.g. has_Orbital_Eccentricity_value).6
This yields a formal expression such as:
AAUSat-4 has_Orbital_Eccentricity AAUSat-4 Orbital Eccentricity has_Orbital_Eccentricity_value 0.02

(1)

According to the second approach the orbital properties—eccentricity, inclination, perigee, apogee,
longitude of GEO, and period—are modeled merely with Protégé Data Properties (binary relations) whose range is
again a numeric value. It does not use orbital parameter classes, thereby shortcutting the relationship to orbital
parameter instances. A formal express reads: AAUSat-4 has_Orbital_Eccentricity_value 0.02. This is simpler, and
may have a slight edge in terms of computationally performance (e.g., with automated reasoners), but is arguably
not as ontologically accurate, semantically complete, or conceptually precise. Further research is in order.
In any case, general knowledge, rules and restrictions are necessary to formalize at the class level. For
example, the fundamental domain knowledge that all (closed) orbits have an orbital eccentricity, inclination, period,
perigee, apogee, etc., is formalized. Similarly, given that eccentricities are only from 0 to 1 for all orbits (excluding
parabolic and hyperbolic trajectories), the Data Property has_Orbital_Eccentricity_value has a value restriction
accordingly.
The UCSSD classification restricts the eccentricity of Nearly Circular Orbits to no greater than 0.14. An
approximate but more expressive formalization using Firstorder predicate logic (FOL) is as follows. Note that the
instance_of relation is a domain-neutral formal ontological relation relating categories to their instances. ‗∀‘ is the

6

I do likewise for their orbits: rather than relating the satellite to the parameters, one can relate them to orbits.

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
universal quantifier (―Every‖, ―Each‖, ―For all‖), ‗‘ the existential quantifier (―there exists‖), ‗∧‘ conjunction
(―and‖) ,‗⟶‘ the conditional (―if… then‖), and lowercase letters are instances.
UCSSO:Nearly_Circular_Orbit =def.
∀x [instance_of(x, Nearly_Circular_Orbit) ⟶
instance_of(x, Orbit) ∧ y[has_Orbital_Eccentricty_value(x,y) ∧ y≤0.14]]

(2)

According to the first modeling approach, but with the Orbit class, a FOL formalization is:
∀x [instance_of(x, Nearly_Circular_Orbit) ⟶ instance_of(x, Orbit) ∧
y,z [has_Orbital_Eccentricty(x,y) ∧ instance_of(y, Orbital_Eccentricity)
∧ has_Orbital_Eccentricty_value(y,z) ∧ z≤0.14]]

(3)

From an ontological perspective, the first approach is ontologically richer, describing more entities in the
universe of discourse whereas the former is ontologically sparser. I have questions as to the ontological status of
many of these entities, questions to be investigated, and so I include both strategies tentatively. Note that the time
(Epoch) element is implicit, but necessary in future development since the orbital parameters change over time.

2.2 Purpose Taxonomy – Functions of Satellites
The UCS manual describes Purpose (of satellites) as ―The discipline in which the satellite is used in broad
categories‖. Based on this description and that of the Detailed Purpose field, the latter are subclasses of the former.
From a philosophical perspective, however, there are conceptual and ontological differences between a discipline
and a purpose. We can just as easily assert a binary relation, has_Discipline_of_Investigation whose domain and
range are Artificial_Satellite and Discipline (or instances thereof). UCSSO includes the following hierarchy (figure
3).

Figure 3. Taxonomy of Purpose classes of UCSSO, displayed in Protégé ontology editor.

A similar concept to that of purpose is function. Function is an ontological category often ascribed of
engineering artifacts, making it attributable to artificial satellites. The literature is replete with analyses of functions
and much can be said on both concepts, but I will not delve into it here. For this communication, the reader may use
Purpose and Function interchangeably, e.g., reading ‗Communications_Purpose‘ as ‗Communications_Function‘.

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
2.3 Social and Political Entity Terms
Social entity classes such as User (and its subclasses, e.g., Civil_User), Owner, and Operator may be
organizations such as companies, space agencies, satellite operators from industry, military departments, universities
and academic departments with satellite databases. The UCSSD mentions particular users and owners, such as: the
University of Aalborg, Asia Broadcast Satellite Ltd., US Air Force, Aerospace Corporation, and the European Space
Agency. These individuals are asserted in the ontology as instances of their respective classes: Company,
University, Space Agency, etc. Likewise for Country and Organization, which I assert as distinct classes because
of their ontological differences. If desired, these social and political entity classes can be imported from or mapped
to an existing resource that models organizational entities.
Very briefly, the upper-level ontological category of Role may be helpful to characterize Owner and
Operator, because a company or agency can be an owner or operator of an artificial satellite at one time but not
another. Roles are entities that a role-holder plays over a period time in certain states of affairs. They are non-rigid
properties according to [27]. That is, arguably nothing is necessarily an Owner or Operator, but only so under certain
conditions.

2.4 Relations & Supplemental Upper-level Classes
Table 3 lists the binary relational predicates (Object and Data Properties) to relate the foregoing classes and
instances. This allows us to express different characteristics associated with satellites. They are presented as binary
because OWL (typically used in Protégé) is unfortunately limited to binary predicates, one expressive limitation of
the ontology language. In reality, such relations will more accurately have more than two arguments.

Relation
has_Orbit / has_Orbit_type
has_Country_of_Origin
is_registered_Country_in_UN_Register_of_Space_Objects_for
is_registered_Organization_in_UN_Register_of_Space_Objects_for
has_Operator
has_Owner
has_User
has_Contractor
has_Identifier
has_COSPAR number
has_NORAD number
has_Purpose
has_Function
has_Orbital_Property / has_Orbital_Parameter
has_Orbital_Inclination
has_Orbital_Inclination_value
has_Orbital_Eccentricity
has_Orbital_Eccentricity_value
has_Logitutde_of_GEO
has_Logitutde_of_GEO_value
has_Perigee
has_Perigee_value
has_Apogee
has_Apogee_value
has_Dry_Mass
has_Launch_Mass
has_Power_value
has_Date_of_Launch
has_Expected_Lifetime

Domain (class)
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Country
Organization
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite

Range
Orbit
Country
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Operator
Owner
User
Contractor
COSPAR_Number
NORAD_Number
(Alphanumeric values)
Purpose
Function

Artificial_Satellite, Orbit

Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite,
Launch_Vehicle
Artificial_Satellite,
Launch_Vehicle

Orbital_Inclination
A numeric value.
Orbital_Eccentricity
A numeric value.
Logitutde_of_GEO
Degrees.
Perigee
A numeric value, km.
Apogee
A numeric value, km.
Kilograms
Kilograms
Watts
Date
Time Interval/Period
(e.g. years)

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
has_Launch_Site
has_Launch_Vehicle

Artificial_Satellite
Artificial_Satellite
Table 3. Relational predicates, and their domain and range.

Launch_Site
Launch_Vehicle

For example, as with describing orbital properties, measurements, and social/political aspects such as
ownership, temporal indexing is often necessary. A time, t, represents temporal moments, and a range, [t, tn]
represents temporal intervals. These can serve as a third argument, something easily expressible in FOL, higherorder logics, and the CLIF ontological language. Computational complexity notwithstanding, for this reason, n-ary
relations where n≥2, should be sought after if one aims for a complete and detailed ontological representation.
The UCSSD includes various numeric figures, e.g., for the orbital parameters. As mentioned in section 2.1,
one strategy to represent these entities is to assert Data Properties in Protégé whose Range is a numeric value.
Accordingly, the word ‗value‘ is included in the relation name to disambiguate from Object Property relations.
Finally, figure 4 portrays UCSSO at the class level, where ovals, grey boxes, and arrows signify classes, groupings
of classes, and relations, respectively.

Figure 4. The UCS Satellite Ontology. Grey boxes signify groupings of classes.

Since UCSSO presently reflects only those concepts in the UCSSD, a more complete representation of the
domain would call for using a domain ontology such as the SSAO [5].
3. A Domain Ontology for Satellite Databases: The SSA Ontology and The Orbital Space Domain Ontology
Project
The preceding presented an ontology specifically of the Union of Concerned Scientists Satellite Database
(UCSSO). This section discusses a domain reference ontology effort by the author that may be used by any satellite
database, including the UCSSD. In all, this work is part of the orbital space domain ontology project [6][8],
conceived in early form in 2011 and first published in [4](Rovetto 2015). The main production goal is one or more
ontologies for astronautics, orbital debris, SSA and the space domain. These ontologies adopt the open world
assumption, are currently under development, subject to revision, and open to cooperative development and
partnerships. Presently, they are formalized in OWL. OWL files are available through the author, or in the near
future at the persistent URL links in footnotes 1-3.
The SSA Ontology (SSAO) (Fig. 5) [5], for example, is a reference ontology for the SSA domain. It
captures common knowledge and general concepts shared across the SSA and satellite community. A example user
of the SSAO is an ontology-driven orrery project (in progress) by Daniel A. O‘Neil at NASA Marshal Space Flight
Center [28]. The SSAO contains formally defined category and relation terms necessary to annotate SSA data, while
expressing a holistic real-world representation of the domain. Thus, given the domoain of interest, the terms in
UCSSO are terms in (and drawn from) the SSAO, as indicated by Figure 5.

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
This affords at least two options for curators of space object catalogs seeking to apply ontology to their
information systems. One, locally-developed ontologies (e.g. UCSSO) can be mapped to the SSAO, import SSAO
classes, or extend the SSAO.
Two, rather than developing a local ontology, each space actor can use the SSAO as their domain ontology.
As a domain ontology, it is intended to offer a semantically-rich backbone vocabulary for any satellite database,
whether of operational satellites (as in the UCSSD) or all orbital space objects and events (as in the U.S. Space
Object Catalog). Although each database may use a unique data element or term for the same satellite aspect,
annotating them with a higher-level formally-defined class from the SSAO will reduce ambiguity and add
meaningful content to the data. It should also give each actor the option of sharing information. The SSAO may
therefore serve as a potential, if indirect, link between federated databases, offering a common semantics and
domain model. Table 4, revised from Table 1, expresses some central features of the SSAO, drawing in part on
findings by (Raskin and Pan 2003). In either case, cooperative engagement with the SSAO will not only facilitate
mappings between terms in each ontology, but also help develop the SSAO into a thorough domain ontology that
space actors can use.
Common Space Domain Vocabulary:
A Structured Terminology:
Formally-defined SSA Terms:

A SSA Domain Model:
Reusability & Application-neutral:

Scalability & Editable:
Facilitates Analysis:

Universal/general SSA concepts expressed by categories and relation terms
Class-subsumption & other relations between categories, e.g., parthood, etc.
Natural language definitions
Formal definitions
Rules,
(Human readable)
(OWL, FOL, CLIF). (Machine
axioms, etc.
readable)
Formalizes common knowledge of
Expresses meaning.
the satellite domain
Represents real-world orbital phenomena.
Common domain knowledge makes
Heterogeneous space object databases can use it as a
it application-neutral.
domain terminology/representation. They can also
import it (or selected terms) into their own
ontologies.
Open world assumption. New terms can be added. Can be extended by more specialized
ontologies.
Query orbital information/data/ontology (e.g. SPARQL, SWRL, DL Query,etc.)

Table 4. Central features of the SSA ontology & related ontologies (Rovetto, 2015), (Rovetto & Kelso, 2016), (Rovetto, 2016)

Figure 5. A portion of the Space Situational Awareness
Ontology (SSAO) displayed in Protégé.

Figure 6. A portion of the Orbital Debris Ontology
(ODO) displayed in Protégé ontology editor.

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
While the UCSSO focuses on active artificial satellites, a thorough domain reference ontology or ontology
suite should include other sorts of orbital objects, e.g., inactive satellites and orbital debris, their interactions and
relationships to eachother and to other relevant entities, etc. The overall project aims to formally represent all these
entities via one or more modular ontologies, e.g., the SSAO.
Another ontology under development is the Orbital Debris Ontology7 (ODO) (Rovetto 2015, 2016d) (Fig.
6), which initiated the project concept with ODO's conception in 2011 and first publication in 2015. The minimum
scope of ODO is orbital debris. That is, it minimally represents orbital debris objects and their physical properties,
their interrelationships and the relations to other space objects and SSA entities. ODO classes can be used to
annotate data on particular space debris objects, measurement data, etc. A subset of fundamental orbital terms in this
project will form a generic Orbital Ontology (or 'orbitology' ontology) for use by ODO, the SSAO, other ontologies
for space, and applications. UCSSO includes some of these terms.
Not only do they contain equivalent classes to those concepts expressed in the UCSSD, making part of the
SSAO importable into a satellite ontology (e.g. UCSSO), but these ontologies also have more general domainspecific classes capable of subsuming them. Example include: Satellite, Spacecraft, Space Artifact, Space Object,
Orbital Element, Orbital Property, Central Body, Orbital Path, Spacecraft Maneuver, etc. This helps make the
ontologies scalable, as well as application- independent: more specialized astro ontologies can extend them or reuse
selected terms. The SSAO can like extend ontologies or reuse terms. The SSAO and ODO can, for instance, be used
with ontologies such as the NASA SWEET ontologies (SWEET) (Raskin and Pan 2003). Orbital and other
properties are broadly categorized using more abstract classes such as Physical Property. At the most abstract levels
of ontology engineering, these project ontologies (SSAO, ODO, etc.) are usable with foundational or top-level
ontologies (Herre et al. 2006; Guizzardi and Wagner 2010; Mizoguchi 2010; DOLCE 2006), which provide the most
general categories such as Property, Event, and Object.

4. Considerations, Applications and Future Work
Without expanding the coverage of UCSSO, i.e. adding more classes, relations and axioms, there will be
domain entities that it does not represent. UCSSO is therefore minimally applicable to the UCSSD, the domain
coverage being more-or-less limited to the concepts expressed in the UCS database. This is acceptable for satellite
database administrators that need not use the ontology elsewhere. By contrast, the reference ontologies under
development—the SSAO, ODO, a generic orbital ontology, etc.—provide a more thorough coverage of the domain,
allowing use across information systems.
These domain reference ontologies can be applied not only to space object catalogs, but to space
environment visualizations. For example, (Quartz 2015; Grego 2014)[24][25] uses the UCSSD to graphically
visualize satellites. Similarly, and as expressed in NASA Datanaut presentations (part of the NASA open data
initiative) [28] uses the SSAO to populate orbital information toward visualizing an interactive animation of the
solar system. Thus, there is potential for pedagogical innovation, e.g., ontology-based visual aids to learning for
astronomy and astronautics. Finally, given overlapping interest in taxonomy development, potential application of
these ontologies may be to the taxonomy concepts found in publications such as [34] (Fruh et al. 2013).

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
Future work includes development, testing and implementation: class definitions, taxonomy organization,
formalizing domain knowledge, subject-matter research, ontology engineering research, data querying, etc.
Participation from subject-matter experts in space and data/computer science disciplines is encouraged for thorough
development. Satellite observation and tracking involves uncertainty and prediction both in and outside of
astrodnyamic models: orbit propagation, collision estimation, orbital debris origins, space object identification and
tracking, etc. Ontological treatments of uncertainty, causality and predictive processes will therefore be helpful. A
philosophically-rigorous approach, if employed thoroughly, will help to clarify concepts, introduce helpful
distinctions, and precisely characterize domain entities in a formal and platform independent manner.

5. Conclusion
This paper developed an ontology for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Satellite Database. In doing
so, I demonstrated that the Space Situational Awareness Ontology (SSAO), an existing domain ontology for the
satellite and SSA community, can be used either in conjunction with local ontologies like UCSSO, or as an
alternative, i.e., as the domain reference ontology for various satellite databases.
This ongoing effort is intended to provide a common domain-specific computable terminology and
knowledge model for space data systems. Where data is drawn from multiple sensors or databases, ontologies
should foster information fusion via this backbone terminology. These ontologies may also stimulate data exchange,
retrieval and search across federated databases, as well as offer ontological classifications of space objects and
astrodynamic phenomena.

Acknowledgements.
I am grateful for the reviews from the journal reviewers. Thanks also go to Mathias Brochhausen of the
University of Arkansas, and Alan Ruttenberg of the State University of New York at Buffalo for their helpful input
and their time in answering my questions. Thanks to Alan for the modeling suggestion mentioned in the 'Orbit
taxonomy and orbital properties_ subsection.

References
[1] Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Satellite Database. URL= http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/spaceweapons/satellite-database
[2] ―UCS Common Misconceptions‖. URL= https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/nuclear-weapons/satdatabase/common-misconceptions.pdf
[3] UCS Database (Excel format) URL= https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/nuclear-weapons/sat-database/225-16+update/UCS_Satellite_Database_1-1-16.xls
[4] R.J. Rovetto, An Ontological Architecture for Orbital Debris Data, Earth Science Informatics 9(1) (2015), 67–
82. DOI: 10.1007/s12145-015-0233-3. URL= http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12145-015-0233-3
[5] R.J. Rovetto, T.S. Kelso, Preliminaries of a Space Situational Awareness Ontology. Presented at 26th AIAA/AAS
Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Napa, California, USA, Feb 14-18th, 2016. Proceedings published in Advances in
the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 158, Univelt Inc.
Univelt paper URL= http://www.univelt.com/book=5920. Preprint URL=
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1606/1606.01924.pdf

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
[6] R.J. Rovetto. The Orbital Space Environment and Space Situational Awareness Domain Ontology – Towards an
International Information System for Space Data. The Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies
(AMOS) Conference, Sept.20-23, 2016, Maui, Hi, USA. URL=
http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2016/Poster/Rovetto.pdf
[7] ―Three Reasons the UCS Satellite Database is Different from Other Satellite Catalogs‖.
URL=http://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/three-reasons-the-ucs-satellite-database-is-different-from-other-satellitecatalogs
[8] R.J. Rovetto ―Orbital Space Environment and Space Situational Awareness Domain Ontology‖ In CEUR
workshop proceedings for The Joint Ontology Workshops, at the 9th International Conference of Formal Ontology
for Information Systems (FOIS) Early Career Symposium, Annecy, France July 2016. Project summary paper, and
poster session.
[9] R.J. Rovetto ―Ontology Architectures for the Orbital Space Environment and Space Situational Awareness
Domain‖ International Workshop on Ontology Modularity, Contextuality, and Evolution at the 9 th International
Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Annecy France, July 2016.
[10] R.J. Rovetto ―Orbital Debris Ontology‖, Center for Orbital Debris Education and Research (CODER),
University of Maryland, 15-17 November 2016.
[11] R.J. Rovetto, Foundations of Space Object Ontology (Forthcoming).
[12] Quantities, Dimensions, Units and Data Types Ontology (QUDT) URL= http://www.qudt.org/
[13] Staab S, Studer R (Ed.)(2009) Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems,
Springer 2nd ed.
[14] M.Uschold, ―Ontologies and Database Schema: What‘s the Difference?‖ (Powerpoint Presentation) URL=
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b44f/a4592b69183c1965d0075dea1a3bc58dfbfe.pdf
[15] ―What Is an Ontology?‖, Guarino, Nicola, Oberle, Daniel, and Staab, Steffen, in S. Staab and R. Studer (eds.),
Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
2009. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3
[16] Rudi Studer, V. Richard Benjamins, Dieter Fensel. Knowledge Engineering: Principles and methods. Data &
Knowledge Engineering, Vol.25 (1-2), pp.161-197. March, 1998. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169023X(97)00056-6. URL= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X97000566
[17] Borne K.D. (2010) Astroinformatics: data-oriented astronomy research and education. Earth Science
Informatics, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 5-17. URL= http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12145-010-0055-2
[18] National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental
Terminology (SWEET) Ontologies, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. URL=
http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/
[19] Common Logic - International Organization for Standards. URL=
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39175
[20] Web Ontology Language (OWL) URL= https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

This is a pre-print of the paper:
Rovetto, R.J. Earth Sci Inform (2017) 10: 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0290-x
[21] Ian Horrowicks. Ontologies and Databases (Powerpoint presentation). Information Systems Group, Oxford
University Computing Laboratory. URL= www.cs.ox.ac.uk/ian.horrocks/Seminars/download/onto-db.ppt
[22] UCS Satellite Database User‘s Manual 1-1-16. URL= https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/nuclearweapons/sat-database/2-25-16+update/User+Guide+1-1-16+wAppendix.pdf
[23] Protégé ontology editor. URL= http://protege.stanford.edu/
[24] ―The World Above Us: This is every active satellite orbiting the earth‖, Quartz,
URL= http://qz.com/296941/interactive-graphic-every-active-satellite-orbiting-earth/
[25] ―Visualizing the UCS Satellite Database‖ L.Grego, URL=http://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/visualizing-the-ucssatellite-database
[26] ―Exploring and cleaning the Union of Concerned Scientists database of Earth Satellites‖ BaysDB project, The
MIT Probabilistic Computing Project URL= http://probcomp.csail.mit.edu/bayesdb/satellites-notebook.html
[27] N.Guarino and C.Welty. ―An Overview of OntoClean‖, in Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks
on Information Systems pp. 151-171, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_8.
[28] Daniel O‘Neil, Ontology-driven Orrery, NASA , Marshal Space Flight Center.
URL= https://github.com/daoneil/spacemission/tree/master/OntologyDrivenOrrery
Orrery URL= http://daoneil.github.io/spacemission/OntologyDrivenOrrery/An_Orrery_in_ThreeJS.html
[29] General Formal Ontology (GFO) - A Foundational Ontology Integrating Objects and Processes Heinrich Herre,
Barbara Heller†, Patryk Burek, Robert Hoehndorf, Frank Loebe, Hannes Michalek, Part I: Basic Principles, Version
1.0.1. URL= http://www.onto-med.de/ontologies/gfo/
[30] Giancarlo Guizzardi, Gerd Wagner. Using the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) as a Foundation for
General Conceptual Modeling Language, Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications, pp 175196, 12 August 2010, Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_8
[31] Yet Another More Advanced Top Level Ontology (YAMATO), URL=
http://download.hozo.jp/onto_library/upperOnto.htm
[32] Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE)
URL= http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/DOLCE.html
[33] Raskin R, Pan M (2003) Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology. CEUR Workshop
Proceedings Vol-83. ISSN 1613-0073. Proceedings of workshop on Semantic Web Technologies for Searching and
Retrieving Scientific Data. URL= http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-83/sia_7.pdf
[34] Fruh C, Jah M, Valdez E, Kervin P, Kelecy T (2013) Taxonomy and Classification Scheme for Artificial Space
Objects. In Proceedings of Advanced Maui Optical Space Surveillance Conference, Maui, USA

