Advertisement

Combining Three Multi-agent Based Generalisation Models: AGENT, CartACom and GAEL

  • Cécile Duchêne
  • Julien Gaffuri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the automated generalisation of vector geographic databases. It studies the possible synergies between three existing, complementary models of generalisation, all based on the multi-agent paradigm. These models are respectively well adapted for the generalisation of urban spaces (AGENT model), rural spaces (CARTACOm model) and background themes (GAEL model). In these models, the geographic objects are modelled as agents that apply generalisation algorithms to themselves, guided by cartographic constraints to satisfy. The differences between them particularly lie in their constraint modelling and their agent coordination model. Three complementary ways of combining these models are proposed: separate use on separate zones, “interlaced” sequential use on the same zone, and shared use of data internal to the models. The last one is further investigated and a partial re-engineering of the models is proposed.

Keywords

Automated generalisation Multi-agent-systems Generalisation models Models combination. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bader M (2001) Energy Minimization Methods for Feature Displacement in Map Generalization. Ph.D. thesis, University of ZürichGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrault M, Regnauld N, Duchêne C, Haire K, Baeijs C, Demazeau Y, Hardy P, Mackaness W, Ruas A, Weibel R (2001) Integrating Multi-agent, Object-oriented, And Algorithmic Techniques For Improved Automated Map Generalization. In: Proc. of the 20th International Cartographic Conference, Beijing, China, 2001, vol.3, pp 2110-2116Google Scholar
  3. Beard K (1991) Constraints on rule formation. In: Buttenfield B., McMaster R. (eds) Map Generalization: Making Rules for Knowledge Representation, Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex, pp 32-58Google Scholar
  4. Brassel K, Weibel R (1988) A review and conceptual framework of automated map generalization. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems, 1988, 2(3):229-244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boffet A (2000) Creating urban information for cartographic generalisation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH 2000), Beijing, China, pp 3b4-16Google Scholar
  6. Chaudhry O (2007) Automated scale dependent views of hills and ranges via morphometric analysis. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Cartographic Conference, Moscow, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Duchêne C (2004) The CARTACOm model: a generalisation model for taking relational constraints into account. 6th ICA Workshop on progress in automated map generalisation, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaffuri J (2007) Field deformation in an agent-based generalisation model: the GAEL model. Proceedings of GI-days 2007 - young researches forum, Münster, Germany, 2007, vol. 30, pp 1-24Google Scholar
  9. Galanda M (2003) Automated Polygon Generalization in a Multi Agent System. Ph.D. thesis, University of ZürichGoogle Scholar
  10. Højholt P (2000) Solving Space Conflicts in Map Generalization: Using a Finite Element Method. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 27(1): 65-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubert F, Ruas A (2003) A method based on samples to capture user needs for generalisation. 5th ICA Workshop on progress in automated map generalisation, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Lecordix F, Le Gallic J-M, Gondol L, Braun A (2007) Development of a new generalisation flowline for topographic maps. 10th ICA Workshop on Generalisation and Multiple Representation, Moscow, RussieGoogle Scholar
  13. McMaster R, Shea K (1988) Cartographic Generalization in a Digital Environment: a Framework for implementation in a GIS. Proceedings of GIS/LIS’88, San Antonio, Texas, USA, pp 240-249Google Scholar
  14. Meyer U (1986) Software developments for computer-assisted generalization. In: Proceedings of Auto-Carto, London, 2:247-256Google Scholar
  15. Ruas A, Plazanet C (1996) Strategies for Automated Generalization. Proc. of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Delft, The Netherlands, pp 6.1-6.17Google Scholar
  16. Ruas A (1998) OO-Constraint modelling to automate urban generalisation process. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, pp 225-235Google Scholar
  17. Ruas A (2000) The Roles Of Meso Objects for Generalisation. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Beijing, pp3b50-3b63Google Scholar
  18. Sester M (2000) Generalization Based on Least Squares Adjustment. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol.33Google Scholar
  19. Steiniger S (2007) Enabling Pattern-Aware Automated Map Generalization. Ph.D. thesis, University of ZürichGoogle Scholar
  20. Taillandier P (2007) Automatic Knowledge Revision of a Generalisation System. 10th ICA Workshop on Generalisation and Multiple Representation, MoscouGoogle Scholar
  21. Weibel R, Dutton G (1998) Constraint-Based Automated Map Generalization. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, pp 214-224Google Scholar
  22. Weiss G (1999) Multiagent Systems. A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cécile Duchêne
    • 1
  • Julien Gaffuri
    • 1
  1. 1.IGN COGIT LaboratoryFrance

Personalised recommendations