Advertisement

Building a Robust Relational Implementation of Topology

  • Erik Hoel
  • Sudhakar Menon
  • Scott Morehouse
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2750)

Abstract

Topologically structured data models often form the core of many users’ spatial databases. Topological structuring is primarily used to ensure data integrity; it describes how spatial objects share geometry. Supporting topology within the context of a relational database imposes additional requirements – the complex topological model must retain integrity across transactional boundaries. This can be a problematic requirement given the complexities associated with implementing safe referential integrity structures in relational databases (e.g., bulk data loading into a topologically structured model) [19, 5]. Common implementation techniques such as allowing dangling pointers (i.e., null foreign keys) complicates the issues for client applications that consume these models. In this paper, we revisit the problem of building a robust and scalable relational implementation of a topologically structured data model. We propose a different approach to representing such models that avoids many of the traditional relational database problems associated with maintaining complex semantic models.

Keywords

Relational Database Topology Model Geographic Information System Topological Relationship Feature Geometry 
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.
    Alexandroff, P.: Elementary Concepts of Topology. Dover Publications, New York (1961)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgart, B.: Winged-edge Polyhedron Representation. Technical Report STAN-CS-320, Computer Science Department. Stanford University, Stanford (1972)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boudriault, G.: Topology in the TIGER File. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computer Assisted Cartography (Auto-Carto 8), Baltimore, MD (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broome, F., Meixler, D.: The TIGER Data Base Structure. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 17(1) (January 1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ceri, S., Cochrane, R., Widom, J.: Practical Applications of Triggers and Constraints: Successes and Lingering Issues. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 2000), Cairo, Egypt (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clementini, E., Di Felice, P., van Oosterom, P.: A Small Set of Formal Topological Relationships Suitable for End-User Interaction. In: Rangan, P.V. (ed.) NOSSDAV 1992. LNCS, vol. 712. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooke, D., Maxfield, W.: The Development of a Geographic Base File and its Uses for Mapping. In: Urban and Regional Information Systems for Social Programs Kent, OH. Papers from the Fifth Annual Conference of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, Center for Urban Regionalism, Kent State University (1967)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corbett, J.: Topological Principles in Cartography. Technical Paper 48. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egenhofer, M., Herring, J.: Categorizing Binary Topological Relations Between Regions, Lines, and Points in Geographic Databases. Technical Report, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of Maine (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ESRI. Building a Geodatabase. prepared by Environmental Systems Research Institute. ESRI Press, Redlands (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gulutzan, P., Pelzer, T.: SQL-99 Complete, Really, Miller Freeman, Lawrence, Kansas (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Güting, R.: Realm-Based Spatial Data Types: The ROSE Algebra. VLDB Journal 4(2) (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammer, M., McLeod, D.: Semantic Integrity in a Relational Database System. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 1975), Framingham, Massachusetts (September 1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herring, J.: TIGRIS: Topologically Integrated Geographic Information System. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computer Assisted Cartography (Auto-Carto 8), Baltimore, MD (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Intergraph Corp. GIS: The MGE Way. Intergraph Technical Paper (October 1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO TC 211/WG 2. Geographic Information – Spatial Schema. Technical Report, Second Draft of ISO 19107, International Organization for Standardization (1999) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, W. (ed.): Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond. ACM Press, New York (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kinnear, C.: The TIGER Structure. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Computer Assisted Cartography (Auto-Carto 8), Baltimore, MD (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Markowitz, V.: Safe Referential Integrity Structures in Relational Databases. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 1991), Barcelona (September 1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    May, W., Ludäscher, B.: Understanding the Global Semantics of Referential Actions using Logic Rules. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 27(4) (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Milenkovic, V.: Verifiable Implementations of Geometric Algorithms Using Finite Precision Arithmetic. In: Geometric Reasoning. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morehouse, S.: ARC/INFO: A Geo-Relational Model for Spatial Information. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Computer Assisted Cartography (Auto-Carto 7), Washington, DC (March 1985)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Munkres, J.: Topology, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peucker, T., Chrisman, N.: Cartographic Data Structure. The American Cartographer 2(2) (1975)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rigaux, P., Scholl, M., Voisard, A.: Spatial Databases with Application to GIS. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simon, E., Kotz-Dittrich, A.: Promises and Realities of Active Database Systems. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 1995), Zürich, Switzerland (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    U. S. Census Bureau. 2002 TIGER/Line Technical Documentation. Prepared by the U. S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Oosterom, P., Stoter, J., Quak, W., Zlantanova, S.: The Balance Between Geometry and Topology. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH 2002), Ottawa, Canada (July 2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Roessel, J.: A New Approach to Plane-Sweep Overlay: Topological Structuring and Line-Segment Classification. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 18(1) (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Roessel, J.: Supporting Multi-Layer Map Overlay and Shared Geometry Management in a GIS. In: Molenaar, M., van Krefeld, M., Weibel, R. (eds.) Computational Cartography. Cartography Meets Computational Geometry, Dagstuhl Seminar Report 252 (September 1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Watson, P.: Topology and ORDBMS Technology. Laser-Scan White Paper, Laser-Scan Ltd. (January 2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zeiler, M.: Modeling Our World: The ESRI Guide to Geodatabase Design. ESRI Press, Redlands (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Hoel
    • 1
  • Sudhakar Menon
    • 1
  • Scott Morehouse
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Systems Research InstituteRedlandsUSA

Personalised recommendations