Introducing a Reasoning System Based on Ternary Projective Relations

  • Roland Billen
  • Eliseo Clementini


This paper introduces a reasoning system based on ternary projective relations between spatial objects. The model applies to spatial objects of the kind point and region, is based on basic projective invariants and takes into account the size and shape of the three objects that are involved in a relation. The reasoning system uses permutation and composition properties, which allow the inference of unknown relations from given ones.


Convex Hull Reference Object Projective Property Spatial Object Reasoning System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cohn, A.G. and S.M. Hazarika, Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning: An Overview. Fundamenta Informaticae, 2001. 46(1–2): p. 1–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Egenhofer, M.J. and J.R. Herring, Categorizing Binary Topological Relationships Between Regions, Lines, and Points in Geographic Databases. 1991, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Egenhofer, M.J., Deriving the composition of binary topological relations. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1994. 5(1): p. 133–149.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clementini, E. and P. Di Felice, Spatial Operators. ACM SIGMOD Record, 2000. 29(3): p. 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waller, D., et al., Place learning in humans: The role of distance and direction information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2000. 2: p. 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clementini, E., P. Di Felice, and D. Hernández, Qualitative representation of positional information. Artificial Intelligence, 1997. 95: p. 317–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billen, R. and E. Clementini, A model for ternary projective relations between regions, in EDBT2004 — 9th International Conference on Extending DataBase Technology, E. Bertino, Editor. 2004, Springer-Verlag: Heraklion — Crete, Greece. p. 310–328.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gapp, K.-P. Angle, Distance, Shape, and their Relationship to Projective Relations. in Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 1995. Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goyal, R. and M.J. Egenhofer, Cardinal directions between extended spatial objects. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2003. (in press).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulik, L. and A. Klippel, Reasoning about Cardinal Directions Using Grids as Qualitative Geographic Coordinates, in Spatial Information Theory. Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science: International Conference COSIT’99, C. Freksa and D.M. Mark, Editors. 1999, Springer. p. 205–220.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidtke, H.R., The house is north of the river: Relative localization of extended objects, in Spatial Information Theory. Foundations of Geographic Information Science: International Conference, COSIT 2001, D.R. Montello, Editor. 2001, Springer. p. 415–430.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moratz, R. and K. Fischer. Cognitively Adequate Modelling of Spatial Reference in Human-Robot Interaction. in Proc. of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2000. 2000. Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlieder, C., Reasoning about ordering, in Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS — International Conference, COSIT’95, A.U. Frank and W. Kuhn, Editors. 1995, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 341–349.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skiadopoulos, S. and M. Koubarakis, Composing cardinal direction relations. Artificial Intelligence, 2004. 152(2): p. 143–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freksa, C., Using Orientation Information for Qualitative Spatial Reasoning, in Theories and Models of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, A.U. Frank, I. Campari, and U. Formentini, Editors. 1992, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 162–178.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scivos, A. and B. Nebel, Double-Crossing: Decidability and Computational Complexity of a Qualitative Calculus for Navigation, in Spatial Information Theory. Foundations of Geographic Information Science: International Conference, COSIT 2001, D.R. Montello, Editor. 2001, Springer. p. 431–446.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isli, A. Combining Cardinal Direction Relations and other Orientation Relations in QSR. in AI&M 14-2004, Eighth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics. 2004. January 4–6, 2004, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank, A.U., Qualitative Reasoning about Distances and Directions in Geographic Space. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1992. 3(4): p. 343–371.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Isli, A. and A.G. Cohn, A new approach to cyclic ordering of 2D orientations using ternary relation algebras. Artificial Intelligence, 2000. 122: p. 137–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Struik, D.J., Projective Geometry. 1953, London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Billen
    • 1
  • Eliseo Clementini
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Geosciences, Department of Geography and GeomaticsUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland (UK)
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of L’AquilaPoggio di Roio (AQ)Italy

Personalised recommendations