, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 193–217 | Cite as

A Statistical Model for Directional Relations Between Spatial Objects

  • Min Deng
  • Zhilin LiEmail author


Directional relation, as a kind of spatial constraints, has been recognized as being an important means for spatial query, analysis and reasoning. Directional relation is conventionally concerned with two point objects. However, in spatial query and analysis, there is also a need of directional relations between point and line, point and area, line and line, line and area, and area and area. Therefore, conventional definition of direction needs to be extended to include line and area objects (i.e. the so-called extended objects). Existing models for directional relation of extended objects make use of approximate representations (e.g. minimum bounding rectangles) of the extended objects so as to produce some results with unrealistic impression. In this paper, a statistical model is presented. In this new model, (1) an extended spatial object is decomposed into small components; (2) the directional relation between extended spatial objects is then determined by the directions between these small components which form a distribution; and (3) two measures (i.e. range and median direction) are utilized to describe the statistical property of the distribution. This statistical model is based upon the (extended) spatial objects themselves, instead of their approximate representations. An experimental test has been carried out and the result indicates that the directional relations computed from this model is very close to those perceived by human beings.


directional relation statistical approach distribution range median direction 



This work is supported by the RGC of Hong Kong (project PolyU 5228/06E) and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (project G-T873).


  1. 1.
    A.I. Abdelmoty and M.H.Williams. “Approaches to the representation of qualitative spatial relationship for geographic database,” in M. Molenaar and S de Hoop (Eds.), Proceedings of Advanced Geographic Data Modeling, Vol. 40:204–216, The Netherlands Geodetic Commission, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.F. Allen. “Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26(11):832–843, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Billen and E. Clementini. “Introducing a reasoning system based on ternary projective relations,” in P. Fisher (Ed.), Developments in Spatial Data Handling, 381–394, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Bennett. “Logical representations for automated reasoning about spatial relations,” Ph.D thesis, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Bruns and M. Egenhofer. “Similarity of spatial scenes,” in M.J. Kraak and M. Molenaar (Eds.), The 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling. Delft: The Netherlands, 173–184, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.K. Chang, Q.S. Shi, and C.W. Yan. “Iconic indexing by 2D-strings,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 9(6):413–428, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.K. Chang and E. Jungert. Symbolic projection for image information retrieval and spatial reasoning. London: Academic, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Chen, C. Li, Z. Li, and C. Gold. “A Voronoi-based 9-intersection model for spatial relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15(3):201–220, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Cicerone and P. Di Felice. “Cardinal directions between spatial objects: the pairwise-consistency problem,” Information Sciences, Vol. 164(2004):165–188.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Claramunt and M. Thériault. “Fuzzy semantics for directional relations between composite regions,” Information Sciences, Vol. 160:73–90, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Clementini, P. Di Felice, and D. Hernández. “Qualitative representation of positional information,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 95(2):317–356, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Coros, J. Ni, and P. Matsakis. “Object localization based on directional information: case of 2D vector data,” in Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pp. 163–170, Virginia, USA, November 10–11, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Z. Cui, A.G. Cohn, and D.A. Randell. “Qualitative and topological relationships in spatial databases,” in Proceedings of SSD-93, pp. 296–315, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Deng, X. Chen, and Z. Li. “A generalized Hausdorff distance for spatial objects in GIS,” in C. Gold (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th ISPRS Workshop on Dynamic and Multi-dimensional GIS, 10–15, UK, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Egenhofer and R. Franzosa. “Point-set topological spatial relationships,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 5(2):161–174, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Faltings. “Qualitative spatial reasoning using algebraic topology,” in Proceedings of COSIT-95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 988, Springer, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Frank. “Qualitative spatial reasoning about distances and directions in geographic space,” Journal of Visual Language and Computing, Vol. 3:343–371, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Frank. “Qualitative spatial reasoning: Cardinal directions as an example,” International Journal of Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 10(3):269–290, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Freksa. “Using orientation information for qualitative spatial reasoning,” in A.U. Frank, I. Campari, and U. Formentini (Eds.), Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 639. Springer: New York, 162–178, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Freksa and R. Röhrig. “Dimensions of qualitative spatial reasoning,” in N.P. Carret and M.G.Singh (Eds.), Qualitative Reasoning and Decision Technologies, Proceedings of QUARDET’ 93. CIMNE: Barcelona, 483–492, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Godoy and A. Rodriguez. “A qualitative description of spatial configurations,” in D. Richardson and P. van Oosterom (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Data Handling. Springer: Ottawa, 292–312, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Goyal. “Similarity assessment for cardinal directions between extended spatial objects,” Ph.D thesis, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Haar. Computational models of spatial relations. Technical report: TR-478, MSC-72-03610, Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1976.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Hernández. “Qualitative representation of spatial knowledge,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 804, Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Z.L. Li, R.L. Zhao, and J. Chen. “A Voronoi-based spatial algebra for spatial relations,” Progress in Natural Science, Vol. 12(7):528–536, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Ligozat. “Reasoning about cardinal directions,” Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 9:23–44, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    X. Liu and S. Shekhar. “Object-based directional query processing in spatial databases,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 15(2):295–304, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    D.M. Mark, A.U. Frank, M.J. Egenhofer, S.M. Freundschuh, M. McGranaghan, and R.M. White. “Languages of spatial relations,” Initiative 2: Meeting Report, TR89-2, NCGIA, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Mukerjee and G.A. Joe. “Qualitative model for space,” in Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, MA, 721–727, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Papadias. “Relation-based representation of spatial knowledge,” Ph.D thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 1994.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Papadias, Y. Theodoridis, T. Sellis, and M. Egenhofer. “Topological relations in the world of minimum bounding rectangles: A study with R-trees,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD-95, 92–103, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Papadias and M. Egenhofer. “Algorithms for hierarchical spatial reasoning,” GeoInformatica, Vol. 1(3):251–273, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. Peuquet and C.X. Zhan. “An algorithm to determine the directional relationship between arbitrary-shape polygons in the plane,” Pattern Recognition, Vol. 20(1):65–74, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Pullar and M. Egenhofer. “Toward formal definitions of topological relations among spatial objects,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Sydney, Australia, August, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    D.A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. “A spatial logic based on regions and connection,” in M. Kaufmann and S. Mateo (Eds.), in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 165–176, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Renz and B. Nebel. “On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: A maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 108(1–2):69–123, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Röhrig. “A theory for qualitative spatial reasoning based on order relations,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, 1418–1423, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. Schlieder. “Representing visible locations for qualitative navigation,” in N. Carreté and M.G. Singh (Eds.), Qualitative Reasoning and Decision Technologies, 523–532, CIMNE, Barcelona, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Sharma. “Integrated spatial reasoning in geographic information systems: Combining topology and direction,” Ph.D thesis, The Graduate School, University of Maine, 1996.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A.P. Sistla, C. Yu, and R. Haddad. “Reasoning about spatial relationships in picture retrieval systems,” in Proceedings of VLDB-94, 570–581, 1994.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    S. Skiadopoulos and M. Koubarakis. “Composing cardinal directions relations,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial and Temporal Databases (SSTD’01), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2121, Springer, Berlin, 299–317, 2001.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Y. Theodoridis, D. Papadias, and E. Stefanakis. “Supporting directional relations in spatial database systems,” in J.M. Kraak and M. Moleenar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Taylor Francis, Delft, The Netherlands, 739–752, 1996.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    H. Yan, Y. Chu, Z. Li, and R. Guo. “A quantitative description model for directional relations based on direction groups,” Geoinformatica, Vol. 10(2):177–195, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Land Surveying and Geo-InformaticsHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations