Advertisement

CHECKING CONSISTENCY IN HYBRID QUALITATIVE SPATIAL REASONING

  • Haibin Sun
  • Wenhui Li
  • Yong-jian Zhang
Conference paper

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the problem of checking consistency in a hybrid formalism which combines two essential formalisms in qualitative spatial reasoning: topological formalism and cardinal direction formalism. First the general interaction rules are given, and then, based on these rules, an improved constraint propagation algorithm is introduced to enforce the path consistency. The results of computational complexity of checking consistency for CSPs based on various subsets of this hybrid formalism are presented at the end of this article.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    A. Gerevini and J. Renz (2002), Combining topological and size constraints for spatial reasoning. Artificial Intelligence (AIJ), 137, 1–2, pp. 1–42.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Isli, V. Haarslev and R. Moller (2001), Combining cardinal direction relations and relative orientation relations in Qualitative Spatial Reasoning. Technical Report FBI-HH-M-304/01, Fachbereich Informatik, University Hamburg.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Egenhofer (1989), A formal definition of binary topological relationships. In: Third International Conference on Foundations of Data Organization and Algorithms (FODO), Paris, France.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Goyal and M. Egenhofer (2000), Cardinal directions between extended spatial objects. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Available at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~max/RJ36.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.A. Randell, A.G. Cohn and Z. Cui (1992), Computing transitivity tables: a challenge for automated theorem provers. In: Proceedings CADE 11, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Skiadopoulos and M. Koubarakis (2004), Composing cardinal direction relations. Artificial Intelligence, 152, 2, pp. 143–171.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Cicerone and P. Di Felice (2004), Cardinal directions between spatial objects: the pairwise-consistency problem. Information Sciences, 164, pp. 165–188.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.F. Allen (November 1983), Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM, 26, 11, pp. 832–843.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Renz and B. Nebel (1999), On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: a maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus. Artificial Intelligence (AIJ), 108, 1–2, pp. 69–123.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Renz (August 1999), Maximal tractable fragments of the region connection calculus: a complete analysis. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’99), Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Skiadopoulos and M. Koubarakis (2002), Qualitative spatial reasoning with cardinal directions. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programing (CP’02), in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2470, Springer, Berlin, pp. 341–355.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haibin Sun
    • 1
  • Wenhui Li
    • 1
  • Yong-jian Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Symbol Computation and Knowledge Engineering of the Ministry of Education, School of Computer Science and TechnologyJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Department of Information and Electronical EngineeringShandong Institute of Architecture and EngineeringJinanChina

Personalised recommendations