The Impact of Classification Approaches on the Detection of Hierarchies in Place Descriptions

  • Daniela RichterEmail author
  • Kai-Florian Richter
  • Stephan Winter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


The chapter investigates the identification of hierarchical structures in place descriptions. Different approaches to classify spatial granularity will be compared and applied to a corpus of human place descriptions. Results show how hierarchical structures as well as deviations depend on the respective classifications. They further indicate certain difficulties in developing a suitable classification of spatial references. Findings contribute to the understanding of human spatial language, and thus the development of flexible mechanisms for their interpretation and integration in location-based systems.


Hierarchical Structure Classification Scheme Noun Phrase Environmental Space Spatial Knowledge 
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 work was funded by the Australian Research Council under its Linkage Scheme (LP100200199).


  1. Bittner T, Smith B (2003) A theory of granular partitions. In: Duckham M, Goodchild MF, Worboys M (eds) Foundations of geographic information science. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 117–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Couclelis H, Gale N (1986) Space and spaces. Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  3. Dale R (1992) Generating referring expressions: constructing descriptions in a domain of objects and processes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Freundschuh S, Egenhofer M (1997) Human conceptions of spaces: Implications for geographic information systems. Trans GIS 2(4):361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Speech acts, syntax and semantics, vol 3. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  6. Hirtle SC, Jonides J (1985) Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Mem Cogn 13(3):208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hobbs JR (1985) Granularity. In: Joshi AK (ed) Proceedings of the 9th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, pp 432–435Google Scholar
  8. Ishikawa T, Montello DR (2006) Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cogn Psychol 52(2):93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keet C (2006) A taxonomy of types of granularity. In: IEEE conference in granular computing (GrC2006), pp 10–12Google Scholar
  10. Kelleher J, Kruijff GJM (2006) Incremental generation of spatial referring expressions in situated dialog. In: 21st international conference on computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Sydney, pp 1041–1048Google Scholar
  11. Kolars J, Nystuen J, Bell D (1975) Physical geography: environment and man. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuipers B (1978) Modeling spatial knowledge. Cogn Sci 2(2):129–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Mani I, Doran C, Harris D, Hitzeman J, Quimby R, Richer J, Wellner B, Mardis S, Clancy S (2010) SpatialML: annotation scheme, resources, and evaluation. Lang Res Eval 44(3):263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Montello D (1993) Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In: Frank A, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory, lecture notes in computer science, vol 716. Springer, Berlin, pp 312–321Google Scholar
  16. Plumert JM, Spalding TL, Nichols-Whitehead P (2001) Preferences for ascending and descending hierarchical organization in spatial communication. Mem Cogn 29(2):274–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raubal M, Winter S (2002) Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (eds) Geographic information science. Springer, Berlin, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2478, pp 243–259Google Scholar
  18. Richter D, Vasardani M, Stirling L, Richter KF, Winter S (2013) Zooming in—zooming out: hierarchies in place descriptions. In: Krisp JM (ed) Progress in location-based services, series, lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography, vol 25. Springer, Berlin, pp 339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosch E, Mervis C, Gray W, Johnson D, Boyes-Braem P (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn Psychol 8(3):382–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sadalla EK, Burroughs WJ, Staplin LJ (1980) Reference points in spatial cognition. J Exp Psychol: Hum Learn Mem 6(5):516–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shanon B (1979) Where questions. In: 17th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. ACL, University of California at San Diego, La JollaGoogle Scholar
  22. Siegel AW, White SH (1975) The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In: Reese HW (ed) Advances in child development and behavior, vol 10. Academic Press, New York, pp 9–55Google Scholar
  23. Smith B, Mark DM (2001) Geographical categories: an ontological investigation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(7):591–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sorrows ME, Hirtle SC (1999) The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freksa C, Mark DM (eds) Spatial information theory. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1661. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–50Google Scholar
  25. Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance-communication and cognition. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Stevens A, Coupe P (1978) Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cogn Psychol 10(4):422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Talmy L (1983) How language structures space. In: Herbert L, Pick J, Acredolo LP (eds) Spatial orientation: theory, research, and application. Plenum Press, New York, p 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tenbrink T, Winter S (2009) Variable granularity in route directions. Spat Cogn Comput 9(1):64–93Google Scholar
  29. Timpf S (1998) Hierarchical structures in map series. Phd thesis, Technical University Vienna, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  30. Tomko M, Winter S (2009) Pragmatic construction of destination descriptions for urban environments. Spat Cogn Comput 9(1):1–29Google Scholar
  31. Vasardani M, Winter S, Richter KF, Stirling L, Richter D (2012) Spatial interpretations of preposition “at”. First ACM SIGSPATIAL international workshop on crowdsourced and volunteered geographic information (GEOCROWD)’12, November 6, 2012 Redondo BeachGoogle Scholar
  32. Winter S, Richter K, Baldwin T, Cavedon L, Stirling L, Duckham M, Kealy A, Rajabifard A (2011) Location-based mobile games for spatial knowledge acquisition. In: Cognitive engineering for mobile GIS. Workshop at COSIT 2011, Belfast, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  33. Zubin D (1989) Natural language understanding and reference frames. In: Mark D, Frank A, Egenhofer M, Freundschuh S, McGranaghan M, White RM (eds) Languages of Spatial Relations: Initiative 2 Specialist Meeting Report Technical Paper, pp 13–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Richter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kai-Florian Richter
    • 2
  • Stephan Winter
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Department of Infrastructure EngineeringThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations