CHECKING CONSISTENCY IN HYBRID QUALITATIVE SPATIAL REASONING
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.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.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.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
- 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.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