Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linking Objects of Different Spatial Data Sets by Integration and Aggregation

  • Published:
GeoInformatica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to solve spatial analysis problems, nowadays a huge amount of digital data sets can be accessed: cadastral, topographic, geologic, and environmental data, in addition to all kinds of other types of thematic information. In order to fully exploit and combine the advantages of each data set, they have to be integrated. This integration has to be established at an object level leading to a multiple representation scheme. Depending on the type of data sets involved, it can be achieved using different techniques.

Such a linking has many benefits. First, it helps to limit redundancies and inconsistencies. Furthermore, it helps to take advantage of the characteristics of more than one data set and therefore greatly supports complex analysis processes. Also, it opens the way to integrated data and knowledge processing using whatever information and processes are available in a comprehensive manner. This is an issue currently addressed under the heading of ‘interoperability’.

Linking has basically two aspects: on the one hand, the links characterize the correspondence between individual objects in two representations. On the other hand, the links also can carry information about the differences between the data sets and therefore have a procedural component, allowing the generation of a new data set based on given information (i.e., database generalization).

In the paper three approaches for the linking of objects in different spatial data sets are described. The first defines the linking as a matching problem and aims at finding a correspondence between two data sets of similar scale. The two other approaches focus on the derivation of one representation from the other one, leading to an automatic generation of new digital data sets of lower resolution. All the approaches rely on methodologies and techniques from artificial intelligence, namely knowledge representation and processing, search procedures, and machine learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amtlich Topographisches-Kartographisches Informationssystem (ATKIS). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Länder der Vermessungsverwaltungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (AdV), Bonn, 1988.

  2. F. Ackermann and M. Hahn. “Image pyramids for digital photogrammetry,” in H. Ebner, D. Fritsch, and C. Heipke, editors, Digital Photogrammetric Systems, pages 43-58, München, September 1991. Wichmann Verlag.

  3. K.-H. Anders and M. Sester. “Methods of data base interpretation—applied to model generalization from large to medium scale,” in W. Förstner and L. Plümer, editors, SMATI '97: Semantic Modelling for the Acquisition of Topographic Information from Images and Maps, pages 89-103. Birkhäuser, 1997.

  4. R. Barrett, A. Ramsay, and A. Sloman. POP-11, A Practical Language for Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K.L. Boyer and A.C. Kak. Symbolic stereo from structural descriptions. Technical Report TR-EE 86-12, School of Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, February 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. K.L. Boyer and A.C. Kak. “Structural stereopsis for 3-D vision,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 10(2):144-166, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. J. Brown, A. Rao, and J. Baran. “Are you Conflated? Integrating TIGER and other data sets through Automated Network Conflation,” in GIS-T 95, GIS/Trans Ltd, Cambridge, April 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. Buttenfield and J.S. Delotto. Multiple representations: Initiative 3 specialist meeting report. Technical Report 89-3, NCGIA, Santa Barbara, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Devogele, J. Trevisan, and L. Raynal. “Building a multi-scale database with scale-transition relationships,” in Kraak and Molenaar [17], pages 6.19-6.33.

  10. Y. Gabay and Y. Doytsher. “Adjustment of line maps,” in GIS/LIS '94, Phoenix, Arizona, pages 191-199, 1994.

  11. Y. Gabay and Y. Doytsher. “Automatic feature correction in merging line maps,” in 1995 ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention & Exposition Technical Papers—Charlotte, North Carolina, volume 2: pages 404-411, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.E. Hart, N.J. Nilsson, and R. Raphael. “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Science and Cybernetics, SSC, Vol. 4(2):100-107, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. Heres and other. GDF-Documentation Vol. 1—Vol. 8. Task Force EDRM, 1991.

  14. E. Jäger. Untersuchungen zur kartographischen Symbolisierung und Verdrängung im Rasterdatenformat. Ph.D. thesis, Fachrichtung Vermessungswesen, Universität Hannover, 1990.

  15. C.B. Jones, D.B. Kidner, L.Q. Luo, G.Ll. Bundy, and J.M. Ware. “Database design for a multi-scale spatial information system,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 10(8):901-920, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. C. Jones. Geographical Information Systems and Computer Cartography. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., Harlow, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M.J. Kraak and M. Molenaar. Advances in GIS research, Proc. of 7th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH), volume 1: Delft, The Netherlands, 1996. Faculty of Geod. Engineering.

  18. F. Lehmann. Special Issue of the Journal Computers and Mathematics with Applications, volume 23:Numbers 2-9, 1992.

  19. M. Lynch and A. Saalfeld. “Conflation: automated map compilation-A video game approach,” in American Society of Photogrammetry, editor, Auto-Carto 7, pages 343-352, 1985.

  20. W.A. Mackaness, R. Weibel, and B.P. Buttenfield. Report of the 1997 ICA workshop on map generalization, 19-21 June. Technical report, Gävle, Sweden, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A.R. Pearce and T. Caelli. Interpreting schematics: Learning how to recognize spatio-temporal relational structures. Technical report, ftp://ftp.cs.curtin.edu.au/pub/adrianp/docs/cviu_article.ps.gz, 1997.

  22. J.R. Quinlan. “Induction of decision trees,” Machine Learning, Vol. 1(1):81-106, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. J.R. Quinlan. “Learning logical definitions from relations,” Machine Learning, 5(1):239-266, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. N. Regnauld. “Recognition of building clusters for generalization,” in Kraak and Molenaar [17], pages 4B.1-4B.14.

  25. D. Richardson. “Automatic processes in database building and subsequent automatic abstractions,” Cartographica, Monograph 47, Vol. 33(1):41-54, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  26. B. Rosen and A. Saalfeld. “Match criteria for automatic alignment,” in Auto-Carto 7, Washington D.C., pages 121-130, 1985.

  27. J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Inc., 1991.

  28. A. Saalfeld. “Automated map compilation,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 2(3):217-228, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  29. L.G. Shapiro and R.M. Haralick. “Structural description and inexact matching,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 3:504-519, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  30. K.S. Shea and R.B. McMaster. “Cartographic generalization in a digital environment—when and how to generalize,” in B. Buttenfield and R. McMaster, editors, Map Generalization: Making rules for knowledge representation, pages 103-118. Longman, 1991.

  31. S.M. Smith and V. Petermann. “Outside plant facilities location and data conversion techniques,” AM/FM International, March 1996, 1996.

  32. S. Spaccapietra, Ch. Parent, and Th. Devogele. “Analysis of discrepancies in spatial data representation,” in Proceedings of International Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications, Kyoto, Japan, 1996.

  33. S. Spaccapietra, Ch. Parent, and Y. Dupont. “Model independent assertions for integration of heterogeneous schemas,” Very Large Data Bases Journal, Vol. 1(1):81-126, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  34. T. Strat. “Advancing computer vision through advances in photogrammetry,” in H. Ebner, C. Heipke, and K. Eder, editors, Spatial Information from Digital Photogrammetry and Computer Vision, volume 30/3: pages 784-792, Munich, Germany, September 1994. ISPRS.

  35. B. Su, Z. Li, G. Lodwick, and J.-C. Müller. “Algebraic models for the aggregation of area features based upon morphological operators,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 11(3):233-246, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. L. Tomaselli. “Topological transfer: evolving linear GIS accuracy,” in URISA (Urban and Regional Information Association), pages 245-259, 1994.

  37. P. van Oosterom. “The GAP-tree, an approach to “on-the-fly” map generalization of an area partitioning,” in J.-C. Mü ller, J.-P. Lagrange, and R. Weibel editors. GIS and Generalization—Methodology and Practice, pages 120-132. Taylor & Francis, 1995.

  38. J.W.N. van Smaalen. “Spatial abstraction based on hierarchical re-classification,” Cartographica, Monograph 47, Vol. 33(1):65-74, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  39. F. van Wijngaarden, J. van Putten, P. van Oosterom, and H. Uitermark. “Map integration—update propagation in a multi-source environment,” In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Las Vegas, USA, 1997.

  40. G. Vosselman. Relational Matching, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 628. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  41. V. Walter. Zuordnung von raumbezogenen Daten—am Beispiel ATKIS und GDF. Dissertation, Deutsche Geodätische Kommission (DGK) Reihe C, Heft Nr. 480, 1997.

  42. V. Walter and D. Fritsch. “Matching techniques for road network data in different data models,” in J. Soliman and D. Roller, editors, 28th International Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation, pages 633-640. Automotive Automation Limited, Croydon, England, September 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  43. V. Walter and D. Fritsch. “Matching strategies for integration of spatial data from different sources,” in Y.C. Lee and Zhi-Lin Li, editors, International Workshop on Dynamic and Multi-Dimensional GIS, 25-26. August, Hong Kong, pages 215-228, 1997.

  44. V. Walter and D. Fritsch. “Relational matching of spatial data,” Accepted for Publication in: International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 1998.

  45. R. Weibel, S. Keller, and T. Reichenbacher. “Overcoming the knowledge acquisition bottleneck in map generalization: The role of interactive systems and computational intelligence,” in A.U. Frank and W. Kuhn, editors, Spatial Information Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 988, pages 139-156, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Photogrammetry, Stuttgart University, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany

    Monika Sester, Karl-Heinrich Anders & Volker Walter

Authors
  1. Monika Sester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karl-Heinrich Anders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volker Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sester, M., Anders, KH. & Walter, V. Linking Objects of Different Spatial Data Sets by Integration and Aggregation. GeoInformatica 2, 335–358 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009705404707

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009705404707

Search

Navigation