Advertisement

A Taxonomy of Granular Partitions

  • Thomas Bittner
  • Barry Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2205)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a formal theory of granular partitions (ways of dividing up or sorting or mapping reality) and we show how the theory can be applied in the geospatial domain. We characterize granular partitions at two levels: as systems of cells, and in terms of their projective relation to reality. We lay down conditions of well-formedness for granular partitions, and we define what it means for partitions to project transparently onto reality in such a way as to be structure-preserving. We continue by classifying granular partitions along three axes, according to: (a) the degree to which a partition represents the mereological structure of the domain it is projected onto; (b) the degree of completeness and exhaustiveness with which a partition represents reality; and (c) the degree of redundancy in the partition structure. This classification is used to characterize three types of granular partitions that play an important role in spatial information science: cadastral partitions, categorical coverages, and the partitions involved in folk categorizations of the geospatial domain.

Keywords

Categorical Coverage Minimal Cell Attribute Domain Master Condition Spatial Partition 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Beard, K. 1988 “Multiple representations from a detailed database: A scheme for automated generalization.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bittner, T. and Stell, J. G. 1998 “A Boundary-Sensitive Approach to Qualitative Location,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 24, 93–114.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bittner, T. and B. Smith 2001 “Vagueness and Granular Partitions.” to appear in C. Welty and B. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of FOIS-2001: The 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Sheridan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bunge, W. 1966 Theoretical Geography. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  5. Casati, R. and Varzi, A.C. 1995 “The Structure of Spatial Location”, Philosophical Studies, 82, 205–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C. 1999 Parts and Places, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chrisman, N. 1982 “Models of Spatial Analysis Based on Error in Categorical Maps.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  8. Erwig, Martin and Schneider, Markus 1999 “The Honeycomb Model of Spatio-Temporal Partitions,” International Workshop on Spatio-Temporal Database Management (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1678), Berlin: Springer, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank, A., Volta, G., and McGranaghan, M. 1997 “Formalization of families of categorical coverages,” International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 11:3, 214–231Google Scholar
  10. Galton, A. C. 1999 “The Mereotopology of Discrete Space”, in C. Freksa and D. M. Mark (eds.) Spatial Information Theory: Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Science (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1661), Berlin/New York: Springer, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guarino N. and Welty, C. 2000 “Ontological Analysis of Taxonomic Relationships,” to appear in A. Laender and V. Storey, (eds.), Proceedings of ER-2000: The 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Berlin/New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. 1991 Parts of Classes, Oxford: Blackwell.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Searle, J. R. 1983 Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Simons, P. M. 1987 Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, B. 1991 “Relevance, Relatedness and Restricted Set Theory”, in G Schurz and G. J. W. Dorn (eds.), Advances in Scientific Philosophy. Essays in Honour of Paul Weingartner, Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 1991, 45–56.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, B. 1995 “On Drawing Lines on a Map”, in Andrew U. Frank and Werner Kuhn (eds.), Spatial Information Theory. A Theoretical Basis for GIS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 988), Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, etc.: Springer, 475–484.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, B. 1999 “Truthmaker Realism”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77(3), 274–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, B. 2001 “True Grid”, in this volume.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, B. and Brogaard, B. 2000 “Quantum Mereotopology,” forthcoming in Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, B. and Brogaard, B. 2001 “A Unified Theory of Truth and Reference,” Logique et Analyse, in press.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, B. and Mark, D. M. 1999 “Ontology with Human Subjects Testing: An Empirical Investigation of Geographic Categories,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58:2, 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Volta, G. and Egenhofer, M. 1993 “Interaction with GIS Attribute Data Based on Categorical Coverages.” in: Frank, A. and Campari, I. (eds.) Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Proceedings. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 716).Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, R. J. and J. J. Watkins (1990). Graphs–An Introductory Approach. New York, John Willey and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Bittner
    • 1
  • Barry Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Qualitative Reasoning Group, Department of Computer ScienceNorthwestern UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Center for Cognitive Science and NCGIAState University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations