A Formal Theory of Objects and Fields

  • Antony Galton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2205)


The distinction between object-based and field-based conceptions of geographical reality has become well-known in recent years. It replicates at a conceptual level the distinction between vector-based and raster-based implementation methods for GIS. In this paper I endeavour to lay the groundwork for a careful, mathematically rigorous development of the relevant ideas at the conceptual level. The notions of object and field are given precise mathematical definitions, and an appropriate formal apparatus is constructed by which to address such issues as the interconvertibility of the object-based and field-based paradigms, and their relative adequacy for different representational problems.


model object field raster vector 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, N. & Vieu, L. (1995), Toward a geometry of common sense: A semantics and a complete axiomatisation of mereotopology, in C. S. Mellish, ed., ‘Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95)’, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Calif., pp. 846–52.Google Scholar
  2. Borgo, S., Guarino, N. & Masolo, C. (1996), A pointless theory of space based on strong connection and congruence, in L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle & S. Shapiro, eds, ‘Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (KR’96)’, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 220–29.Google Scholar
  3. Casati, R. & Varzi, A. (1999), Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. and London.Google Scholar
  4. Couclelis, H. (1992), People manipulate objects (but cultivate fields): Beyond the raster-vector debate in GIS, in A. U. Frank, I. Campari & U. Formentini, eds, ‘Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space’, Vol. 639 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 65–77.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, E. (1990), Representations of Commonsense Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Calif.Google Scholar
  6. Galton, A. (2001), ‘Space, time, and the representation of geographical reality’, Topoi.Google Scholar
  7. Kovalevsky, V. A. (1989), ‘Finite topology as applied to image analysis’, Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 46, 141–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Perring, F. H. & Walters, S. M., eds (1962), Atlas of the British Flora, Thomas Nelson & Sons, London.Google Scholar
  9. Peuquet, D. J. (1984), ‘A conceptual framework and comparison of spatial data models’, Cartographica 21(4), 66–113.Google Scholar
  10. Pratt, I. & Lemon, O. (1997), ‘Ontologies for plane, polygonal mereotopology’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38(2), 225–45.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Randell, D. A., Cui, Z. & Cohn, A. G. (1992), A spatial logic based on regions and connection, in B. Nebel, C. Rich & W. Swartout, eds, ‘Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (KR’92)’, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Calif., pp. 165–76.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, B. (1993), Ontology and the logistic analysis of reality, in N. Guarino & R. Poli, eds, ‘Proceedings of the International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation’, Institute for Systems Theory and Biomedical Engineering of the Italian National Research Council, Padova, Italy, pp. 51–68.Google Scholar
  13. Worboys, M. F. (1995), GIS: A Computing Perspective, Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antony Galton
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations