Advertisement

Application of Supervaluation Semantics to Vaguely Defined Spatial Concepts

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

Abstract

The paper examines ways in which the interpretation of spatial concepts is affected by vagueness and suggests mechanisms for taking account of this within spatial information systems. The theory of supervaluation semantics is explained and applied to the spatial domain and to particular problems of defining geographical concepts such as ‘forest’.

Keywords

vagueness supervaluation semantics concept definitions logic spatial information systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alker, S., Joy, V., Roberts, P. and Smith, N.: 2000, The definition of brownfield, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, B.: 1998, Modal semantics for knowledge bases dealing with vague concepts, in A. G. Cohn, L. Schubert and S. Shapiro (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (KR-98), Morgan Kaufman, pp. 234–244.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, B.: 2001, What is a forest? on the vagueness of certain geographic concepts, Topoi 20(2).Google Scholar
  4. Burrough, P. and Frank, A. (eds): 1996, Geographical Objects with Undetermined Boundaries, GISDATA, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M. and Nardi, D.: 1998, Description logics for conceptual data modelling, in J. Chomicki and G. Saake (eds), Logics for Databases and Information Systems, Kluwer, chapter 1.Google Scholar
  6. Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M.: 1996a, The ‘egg-yolk’ representation of regions with indeterminate boundaries, in P. Burrough and A. M. Frank (eds), Proceedings, GISDATA Specialist Meeting on Geographical Objects with Undetermined Boundaries, Francis Taylor, pp. 171–187.Google Scholar
  7. Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M.: 1996b, Representing spatial vagueness: a mereological approach, in J. D. L C Aiello and S. Shapiro (eds), Proceedings of the 5th conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-96), Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 230–241.Google Scholar
  8. Eschenbach, C.: 2000, Ontology, predicates and identity, in S. Winter (ed.), Geographical Domain and Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 19 of Geoinfo, Institute for Geoinformation, Vienna University of Technology, pp. 33–36.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, M.: 1978, Can there be vague objects?, Analysis 38, 208. reprinted in his Collected Papers, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1985.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, K.: 1975, Vagueness, truth and logic, Synthèse 30, 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, A.: 1997, Spatial ontology: a geographical information point of view, in O. Stock (ed.), Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, Kluwer, Dordrecht, chapter 5, pp. 321–352.Google Scholar
  12. Goodchild, M. F.: 1993, Data models and data quality: problems and prospects, in M. F. Goodchild, B. O. Parks and L. T. Steyaert (eds), Visualization in Geographical Information Systems, John Wiley, New York, pp. 141–149.Google Scholar
  13. Goodchild, M. F. and Gopal, S. (eds): 1989, Accuracy of Spatial Databases, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  14. Heuvelink, G. B.: 1998, Error Propagation in Environmental Modelling with GIS, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Hughes, C.: 1986, Is a thing just the sum of its parts?, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86, 213–233.Google Scholar
  16. Husch, B., Miller, C. and Beers, T.: 1963, Forest Mensuration, Wiley. 3rd edition 1982.Google Scholar
  17. Johnston, D. and Lowell, K.: 2000, Forest volume relative to cartographic broundaries and sample spacing, unit size and type, Geographical and Environmental Modelling 4(1), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kulik, L.: 2000, Vague spatial resoning based on supervaluation, in S. Winter (ed.), Geographical Domain and Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 19 of Geoinfo, Institute for Geoinformation, Vienna University of Technology, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
  19. Lehmann, F. and Cohn, A. G.: 1994, The EGG/YOLK reliability hierarchy: Semantic data integration using sorts with prototypes, Proc. Conf. on Information Knowledge Management, ACM Press, pp. 272–279.Google Scholar
  20. Maling, D.: 1989, Measurements from Maps: principles and methods of cartometry, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mark, D. and Csillag, F.: 1989, The nature of boundaries on ‘area-class’ maps, Cartographica 26, 65–78.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, J.: 1993, Notes on formalizing context, Proceedings of the thirteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-93).Google Scholar
  23. McGee, V.: 1997, Kilimanjaro, Canadian Journal of Philosophy pp. 141–195. supplementary volume 23.Google Scholar
  24. Ordnance Survey: 2000, Land-Line User Guide v3.0. http://www.os.co.uk/downloads/vector/landline/Lline_w.pdf.
  25. OrMlowska, E. (ed.): 1997, Incomplete Information–rough set analysis, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, B.: 1995, On drawing lines on a map, in A. Frank and W. Kuhn (eds), Spatial Information Theory–Proceedings of COSIT’95, number 988 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, pp. 475–484.Google Scholar
  27. UNESCO: 1973, International classi.cation and mapping of vegetation, A report of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Series 6, Ecology and Conservation.Google Scholar
  28. USGS: 1994a, Field Methods for Vegetation Mapping, United States Geological Survey, NPS Vegetation Mapping Program. http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/fieldmethods/index.html.
  29. USGS: 1994b, Standardized National Vegetation Classification System, United States Geological Survey, NPS Vegetation Mapping Program. http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/classification/index.html.
  30. Vckovski, A.: 1997, Interoperability and spatial information theory, Proceedings of Interop97, International Conference on Interoperating Information Systems.Google Scholar
  31. Wang, F. and Brent Hall, G.: 1996, Fuzzy representation of geographical boundaries in GIS, International Journal of GIS 10(5), 573–590.Google Scholar
  32. Williamson, T.: 1994, Vagueness, The problems of philosophy, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  33. Zadeh, L. A.: 1975, Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning, Synthese 30, 407–428.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brandon Bennett
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations