Advertisement

RCC*-9 and CBM*

  • Eliseo Clementini
  • Anthony G. Cohn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8728)

Abstract

In this paper we introduce a new logical calculus of the Region Connection Calculus (RCC) family, RCC*-9. Based on nine topological relations, RCC*-9 is an extension of RCC-8 and models topological relations between multi-type geometric features: therefore, it is a calculus that goes beyond the modeling of regions as in RCC-8, being able to deal with lower dimensional features embedded in a given space, such as linear features embedded in the plane. Secondly, the paper presents a modified version of the Calculus-Based Method (CBM), a calculus for representing topological relations between spatial features. This modified version, called CBM*, is useful for defining a reasoning system, which was difficult to define for the original CBM. The two new calculi RCC*-9 and CBM* are introduced together because we can show that, even if with different formalisms, they can model the same topological configurations between spatial features and the same reasoning strategies can be applied to them.

Keywords

Proper Part Topological Relation Simple Line Open GeoSpatial Consortium Spatial Entity 
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.
    Aref, W.G., Samet, H.: Optimization Strategies for Spatial Query Processing. In: 17th International Conference on Very Large Databases, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 81–90 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, B.: Logical Representations for Automated Reasoning about Spatial Relationships. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clementini, E., Di Felice, P.: A Comparison of Methods for Representing Topological Relationships. Information Sciences 3, 149–178 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clementini, E., Di Felice, P.: A Model for Representing Topological Relationships Between Complex Geometric Features in Spatial Databases. Information Sciences 90, 121–136 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clementini, E., Di Felice, P., van Oosterom, P.: A Small Set of Formal Topological Relationships Suitable for End-User Interaction. In: Abel, D.J., Ooi, B.-C. (eds.) SSD 1993. LNCS, vol. 692, pp. 277–295. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clementini, E., Skiadopoulos, S., Billen, R., Tarquini, F.: A reasoning system of ternary projective relations. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22, 161–178 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Codd, E.F.: A relational model for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM 13, 377–387 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohn, A.G., Bennett, B., Gooday, J., Gotts, N.: Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning with the Region Connection Calculus. GeoInformatica 1, 275–316 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohn, A.G., Renz, J.: Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning. In: Harmelen, F.V., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, vol. 1, pp. 551–596. Elsevier (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohn, A.G., Varzi, A.C.: Mereotopological connection. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32, 357–390 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cui, Z., Cohn, A.G., Randell, D.A.: Qualitative and Topological Relationships in Spatial Databases. In: Abel, D.J., Ooi, B.-C. (eds.) SSD 1993. LNCS, vol. 692, pp. 296–315. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egenhofer, M.J.: Deriving the composition of binary topological relations. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 5, 133–149 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egenhofer, M.J., Clementini, E., Di Felice, P.: Topological relations between regions with holes. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 8, 129–142 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Egenhofer, M.J., Franzosa, R.D.: Point-Set Topological Spatial Relations. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5, 161–174 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egenhofer, M.J., Herring, J.R.: Categorizing Binary Topological Relationships Between Regions, Lines, and Points in Geographic Databases. Department of Surveying Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME Technical Report (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabrielli, N.: Investigation of the Tradeoff between Expressiveness and Complexity in Description Logics with Spatial Operators. Ph.D. Thesis: University of Verona (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galton, A.: Modes of overlap. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 9, 61–79 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galton, A.: Multidimensional Mereotopology. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), Whistler, BC, Canada, June 2-5, pp. 45–54. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galton, A.P.: Taking dimension seriously in qualitative spatial reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1996), Budapest, Hungary, August 11-16 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerevini, A., Renz, J.: Combining topological and size information for spatial reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 137, 1–42 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gotts, N.M.: Formalizing Commonsense Topology: The INCH Calculus. pp. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Isli, A., Cabedo, L.M., Barkowsky, T., Moratz, R.: A Topological Calculus for Cartographic Entities. In: Habel, C., Brauer, W., Freksa, C., Wender, K.F. (eds.) Spatial Cognition 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1849, pp. 225–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OGC Open Geospatial Consortium Inc. OpenGIS Simple Features Implementation Specification for SQL. vol. OGC 99–049 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wölfl, S., Mossakowski, T., Schröder, L.: Qualitative constraint calculi: Heterogeneous verification of composition tables. In: 20th International FLAIRS Conference (FLAIRS 2007), pp. 665–670 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eliseo Clementini
    • 1
  • Anthony G. Cohn
    • 2
  1. 1.Information EngineeringUniversity of L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations