Advertisement

Abstract

Could there be a semantics of maps—a theory which would stand in the same relation to maps as (ordinary) semantics stands in to (ordinary) languages? And what would such a theory look like? This paper addresses these questions from the standpoint of the doctrine that a semantics for a language is a theory which gives the truth-conditions for expressions in that language. We show how a semantics for certain simple sorts of maps can be constructed by analogy with minimal model semantics for the predicate calculus under default reasoning. We go on to show, however, that other sorts of maps challenge a fundamental assumption about truth-conditional approaches to semantics. In particular, we see how the figure/ground ambiguity inherent in some maps forces us to re-think the role played by the syntactical organisation underlying an account of truth-conditions.

Keywords

Syntactic Structure Predicate Calculus Formal Semantic Artificial Language Default Representation 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    J.H. Andrews: Map and Language/ A metaphor extended. Cartographica vol. 27(1), 1–19 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gerhard Brewka: Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Brooks. Solving the Find-Path Problem by Good Representation of Free Space. Proceedings, AAAI. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann 1982, pp. 381–386Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Chubb: An introduction and analysis of a straight line path algorithm for use in binary domains. In A. Kak and Su-shing Chen (eds.): Spatial Reasoning and Multi-Sensor Fusion: Proceedings of the 1987 workshop, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1987, pp. 220–229Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Grant Head: The map as natural language: a paradigm for understanding. In C. Board (ed.): New Insights in Cartographic Communication. Cartographica Monograph 31, University of Toronto 1984, pp. 1–32Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Grant Head: Mapping as language or semiotic system: review and comment. In David M. Mark and Andrew U. Frank (eds.): Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space. NATO ASI series D: Behavioural and Social Sciences vol. 63. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1991, pp. 237–262Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Kapur and J.L. Mundy (eds.): Artificial Intelligence 37(1–3), Special volume on geometric reasoning, (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arthur H. Robinson and Barbara Bartz Petchenik: The nature of maps. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansgeorg Schlichtmann: Characteristic traits of the semiotic system ‘Map Symbolism'. The Cartographic Journal 22, 23–30 (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michael F. Worboys: A generic model for planar geographical objects. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 6(5), 353–372 (1992).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Pratt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations