On the Formulation of Conceptual Spaces for Land Cover Classification Systems

  • Alkyoni BaglatziEmail author
  • Werner Kuhn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Cognitive approaches to knowledge representation improve man–machine communication, as they are close to human reasoning. Conceptual spaces have been proposed as one such knowledge formalization method. Our research investigates the theory of conceptual spaces as a methodology for implementing semantic reference systems. Conceptual spaces are spanned by quality dimensions. Concepts are represented as regions in n-dimensional spaces and instances as n-dimensional vectors. The land cover domain is chosen for applying this theory with the view to formulating a conceptual space from textual descriptions. Based on a land cover classification system and its descriptions, the methodology for extracting the quality dimensions is demonstrated and their measurement scales are discussed. The usefulness of formalizing a classification system as conceptual space is demonstrated in the process of semantically transforming instances from one classification system to another.


Land Cover Canopy Cover Quality Dimension Land Cover Type Conceptual Space 
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.



This research has been partially funded by the EC funded project ENVISION (contract number 217951) and the European Union Seventh Framework Programme—Marie Curie Actions, Initial Training Network GEOCROWD under grant agreement n FP7-PEOPLE-2010- ITN-264994.


  1. Abdullah A, Bulbul R, Mehmood T (2005) Mapping nominal values to numbers by data mining spectral properties of leaves. In: Proceedings of 3rd international symposium on intelligent information technology in agriculture, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams B, Raubal M (2009a) Conceptual space markup language (csml): towards the cognitive semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international conference on semantic computing, ICSC ’09, IEEE computer society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 253–260Google Scholar
  3. Adams B, Raubal M (2009b) A metric conceptual space algebra. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on spatial information theory, COSIT’09, Springer, Berlin, pp 51–68Google Scholar
  4. Ahlqvist O (2004) A parameterized representation of uncertain conceptual spaces. Trans GIS 8(4):493–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahlqvist O (2005) Using uncertain conceptual spaces to translate between land cover categories. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19(7):831–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahlqvist O, Ban H (2007) Categorical measurement semantics: a new second space for geography. Geogr Compass 1(3):536–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aisbett J, Gibbon G (2001) A general formulation of conceptual spaces as a meso level representation. Artif Intell 133(1–2):189–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishr Y (1998) Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to gis interoperability. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12(4):299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brodaric B, Gahegan M, Harrap R (2004) The art and science of mapping: computing geological categories from field data. Comput Geosci 30(7):719–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge M (1973) On confusing measure with measurement in the methodology of behavioral science. In: The methodological unity of science, vol 3. p 105Google Scholar
  11. Chrisman NR (1998) Rethinking levels of measurement for cartography. Cartography Geogr Inf Sci 25(4):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors P (2004) Conceptual spaces: the geometry of thought. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(5):907–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen MC, DeFries RS, Townshend JRG, Sohlberg R (2000) Global land cover classification at 1 km spatial resolution using a classification tree approach. Int J Remote Sens 21(6–7):1331–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Illife J, Lott R (2008) Datums and map projections: for remote sensing, GIS and surveying, 2nd edn. Whittles PublishingGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO VIM (2004) International vocabulary of basic and general terms in metrology (vim). Int Organ 2004:09–14Google Scholar
  17. Janowicz K, Scheider S (2010) Semantic reference systems. In: Warf B (ed) Encyclopedia of geography. SAGE Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Johansson I (2000) Determinables as universals. Last accessed: 09 Oct 2012
  19. Keßler C (2006) Conceptual spaces for data descriptions. In: The cognitive approach to modeling environments (CAME), workshop at GIScience, pp 29–35Google Scholar
  20. Kikuzawa K (1995) Leaf phenology as an optimal strategy for carbon gain in plants. Can J Bot 73(2):158–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn W (2003) Semantic reference systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17:405–409Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn W (2009) Semantic engineering. In: Research trends in geographic information science, chapter 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 63–76Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn W (2012) Semantic reference systems. Lecture notes, reference systems course, ifgiGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn W, Raubal M (2003) Implementing semantic reference systems. In: Gould M, Laurini R, Coulondre S (eds) AGILE 2003—6th AGILE conference on geographic information science, Collection des sciences appliquees de l’ INSA de Lyon, Lyon, France, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  25. Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A (2003) WonderWeb deliverable D18 ontology library (final). Technical report, IST project 2001-33052 WonderWeb: ontology infrastructure for the semantic webGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayaux P, Eva H, Gallego J, Strahler AH, Herold M, Agrawal S, Naumov S, De Miranda EE, Di Bella CM, Ordoyne C et al (2006) Validation of the global land cover 2000 map. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44(7):1728–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Probst F (2007) Semantic reference systems for observations and measurements. PhD thesis, University of Münster, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Raubal M (2004) Formalizing conceptual spaces. In: Formal ontology in information systems, proceedings of the third international conference (FOIS 2004), vol 114. pp 153–164Google Scholar
  29. Rickard JT (2006) A concept geometry for conceptual spaces. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 5(4):311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rickard JT, Aisbett J, Gibbon G (2007) Reformulation of the theory of conceptual spaces. Inf Sci 177(21):4539–4565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosario GE, Rundensteiner EA, Brown DC, Ward MO, Huang S (2004) Mapping nominal values to numbers for effective visualization. Inf Vis 3(2):80–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheider S (2011) Grounding geographic information in perceptual operations. Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, University of Münster, Germany. Available at
  33. Schwering A, Raubal M (2005a) Measuring semantic similarity between geospatial conceptual regions. In: GeoSpatial semantics—first international conference, GeoS 2005, pp 90–106Google Scholar
  34. Schwering A, Raubal M (2005b) Spatial relations for semantic similarity measurement. Perspectives in conceptual modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 259–269Google Scholar
  35. Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103(2684):677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Townshend J, Justice C, Skole D, Malingreau JP, Cihlar J, Teillet P, Sadowski F, Ruttenberg S (1994) The 1 km resolution global data set: needs of the international geosphere biosphere programme. Int J Remote Sens 15(17):3417–3441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Rural and Surveying EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Institute for GeoinformaticsUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations