Advertisement

Qualitative Spatial Reasoning with Cardinal Directions

  • Andrew U. Frank
Part of the Informatik-Fachberichte book series (INFORMATIK, volume 287)

Abstract

Following reviews of previous approaches to spatial reasoning, a completely qualitative method for reasoning about cardinal directions, without recourse to analytical procedures, is introduced and a method is presented for a formal comparison with quantitative formulae. We use an algebraic method to formalize the meaning of cardinal directions. The standard directional symbols (N, S, E, W) are extended with a symbol 0 to denote an undecided case, which greatly increases the power of inference. Two examples of systems to determine and reason with cardinal directions are discussed in some detail and results from a prototype are given. The deduction rules for the coordination of directional symbols are formalized as equations; for inclusion in an expert system they can be coded as a look-up table (given in the text). The conclusions offer some direction for future work.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D. G. Bobrow, S. Mittal and M. J. Stefik. 1986. Expert Systems: Perils and Promise. Communications of the ACM 29 (9): 880–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. S.-K. Chang, E. Jungert and Y. Li. 1990. “The Design of Pictorial Databases Based Upon the Theory of Symbolic Projection”. In Design and Implementation of Large Spatial Databases. Edited by A. Buchmann, O. Gunther, T. R. Smith and Y.-F. Wang. 303–324. New York NY: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. S. K. Chang, Q. Y. Shi and C. W. Yan. 1987. Iconic Indexing by 2-D String. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9 (3): 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Dutta. 1988. “Approximate Spatial Reasoning”. In First International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems. 126–140. Tullahoma. Tennessee: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  5. S. Dutta. 1990. “Qualitative Spatial Reasoning: A Semi-quantitative Approach Using Fuzzy Logic”. In Design and Implementation of Large Spatial Databases. Edited by A. Buchmann, O. Günther, T. R. Smith and Y.-F. Wang. 345–364. New York NY: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. A. U. Frank. 1990. “Spatial Concepts, Geometric Data Models and Data Structures”. In GIS Design Models and Functionality. Edited by D. Maguire. Leicester, UK: Midlands Regional Research Laboratory, University of Leicester.Google Scholar
  7. A. U. Frank. 1991. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning about Cardinal Directions. In Autocarto 10. Edited by D. Mark and D. White. 148–167.Google Scholar
  8. A. U. Frank and D. M. Mark. 1991. “Language Issues for Geographical Information Systems”. In Geographic Information Systems: Principles and Applications. Edited by D. Maguire, D. Rhind and M. Goodchild. London: Longman Co. (in press).Google Scholar
  9. J. Freeman. 1975. The modelling of spatial relations. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 4: 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D. Hernández. 1990. Relative Representation of Spatial Knowledge: The 2-D Case. Report FKI-135–90. Munich FRG: Technische Universität München.Google Scholar
  11. A. Herskovits. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition — An Interdisciplinary Study of the Propositions in English. Stiudies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. R. Jackendoff. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. D. M. Mark and A. U. Frank. 1990. Experiential and Formal Representations of Geographic Space and Spatial Relations. Technical Report (in press).: NCGIA.Google Scholar
  14. D. M. Mark, A. U. Frank, M. J. Egenhofer, S. M. Freundschuh, M. McGranaghan and R. M. White. 1989. Languages of Spatial Relations: Initiative Two Specialist Meeting Report. Technical Report 89–2.: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.Google Scholar
  15. D. McDermott and E. Davis. 1984. Planning routes through uncertain territory. Artificial Intelligence 22: 107–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NCGIA. 1989. The U.S. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis: An overview of the agenda for research and education. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 2 (3): 117–136.Google Scholar
  17. S. Nirenburg and V. Raskin. 1987. “Dealing with Space in Natural Language Processing”. In Spatial Reasoning and Multi-Sensor Fusion. Edited by A. Kak and S.-s. Chen. 361–370. Pleasan Run Resort, St. Charles, IL: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Peuquet and C.-X. Zhan. 1987. An algorithm to determine the directional relationship between arbitrarily-shaped polygons in a plane. Pattern Recognition 20: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Retz-Schmidt. 1987. “Deitic and Intrinsic Use of Spatial Propositions: A Multidisciplinary Comparison”. In Spatial Reasoning and Multi-Sensor Fusion. Edited by A. Kak and S.-s. Chen. 371–380. Pleasan Run Resort, St. Charles, IL: Morgan Kaufmann PublishersGoogle Scholar
  20. F. S. Robert. 1973. Tolerance Geometry. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 14 (1): 68–76.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. L. A. Zadeh. 1974. “Fuzzy Logic and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning”. In Information Processing.: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. C. Zeeman. 1962. “The Topology of the Brain and Visual Perception”. In The Topology of 3-Manifolds. Edited by M. K. Fort. 240–256. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew U. Frank
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) and Department of Surveying EngineeringUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.Technical University ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations