Abstract
In this work we demonstrate a new methodology to conceptualise and implement geo-constraints in 3D, which has not been widely explored yet. This is done in four stages from natural language to implementation, in which geometric primitives and Object Constraint Language (OCL) play a crucial role to formulate the constraints. A database including various 3D topographic objects (e.g. buildings, trees, roads, grass, water-bodies and terrains) from CityGML (no constraints yet) is used as a case study to apply the developed methodology. In this research, a first attempt to formulate 3D geo-constraints in OCL is made. Unified Modelling Language (UML) class diagram has been extended with graphical symbols for indicating constraints between classes (in addition to the additional compartment within a class for a class constraint). These constraint expressions can be tested and translated to other models/implementations when the OCL standard is extended with spatial types and operations. During this research, new types of constraints are defined as follows: general-level constraints (applicable to all object sub-classes), parameterised constraints (containing numeric values, e.g. maximum distance), constraints allowing exceptional instances (to resolve cases that have not been defined) and constraints relating to multi-scale representations (to check the consistency between two levels of detail which model the same object). Additionally common sense rules to detect conflicting constraints are specified as well.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Casanova, M., Wallet, T., & D’Hondt, M. (2000). Ensuring quality of geographic data with UML and OCL. In A. Evans, S. Kent and B. Selic (Eds.), UML’00 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language: Advancing the Standard (pp. 225–239). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Chimiak-Opoka, J., Demuth, B., Awenius, A., Chiorean, D., Gabel, S., Hamann, L., et al. (2010). OCL tools report based on the IDE4OCL feature model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling (OCL 2010) (Vol. 36, p. 18).
Clementini, E., Di Felice, P., & van Oosterom, P. (1993). A small set of formal topological relationships suitable for end-user interaction. In The 3rd International Symposium on Large Spatial Databases.
Cockcroft, S. (1997). A taxonomy of spatial data integrity constraints. GeoInformatica, 1(4), 327–343.
Cockcroft, S. (2004). The design and implementation of a repository for the management of spatial data integrity constraints. GeoInformatica 8(1):49–69.
Duboisset, M., Pinet, F., Kang, M.-A., & Schneider, M. (2005). Precise modeling and verification of topological integrity constraints in spatial databases: From an expressive power study to code generation principles. In L. Delcambre, et al. (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling—ER 2005 (pp. 465–482). Klagenfurt, Austria: Springer.
Egenhofer, M. (2011). Reasoning with complements. In Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Recent Developments and New Directions (pp. 261–270).
Egenhofer, M. J. (1989). A formal definition of binary topological relationships. LNCS 367:457–472.
Elmasri, R., & Navathe, S. B. (2003). Fundamental of database systems (4 ed.). Addison Wesley.
Emgård, L., & Zlatanova, S. (2008). Implementation alternatives for an integrated 3D information model. In Advances in 3D Geoinformation Systems, LNGC (pp. 313–329).
Geomatics, M. (2010). Measure the climate, model the city—acquiring and storing temporal and spatial data for climate research. Technical report. GM2100 Synthesis Project, 112 pp.
Hespanha, J., van Bennekom-Minnema, J., van Oosterom, P., & Lemmen, C. (2008). The model driven architecture approach applied to the land administration domain model version 1.1, with focus on constraints specified in the object constraint language. In FIG Working Week (p. 19).
INSPIRE. (2010a, April 26). D2.8.i.5 INSPIRE data specification on addresses guidelines.
INSPIRE. (2010b, April 26). D2.8.i.6 INSPIRE data specification on cadastral parcels guidelines.
ISO. (2008, September 17). 19107:2003. In Geographic information—Spatial schema. ISO.
Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., & Bast, W. (2003). MDA Explained: The model driven architecture: Practice and promise. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Kolbe, P. D. T. H., König, G., Nagel, C., & Stadler, A. (2009). 3D-Geo-Database for CityGML. Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformation Science, Technische Universität Berlin, 2.0.1 edition.
Louwsma, J. (2004). Constraints in geo-information models—applied to geo-VR in landscape architecture. Master’s thesis, TU Delft. GIRS-2004-17, 104 pp.
Louwsma J, Zlatanova S, van Lammeren R, van Oosterom P (2006) Specifying and implementing constraints in giswith examples from a geo-virtual reality system. GeoInformatica 10:531–550.
Mäs, S., Wang, F., & Reinhardt, W. (2005). Using ontologies for integrity constraint definition. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Quality’05, Beijing, China.
Oracle. (2010a). Oracle Database, PL/SQL Language Reference, 11g Release 2 (11.2). E17126-04 edition, 756 pp.
Oracle. (2010b). Oracle Spatial Developer’s Guide 11g Release 2 (11.2), 916 pp.
Pinet, F., Duboisset, M., & Soulignac, V. (2007). Using UML and OCL to maintain the consistency of spatial data in environmental information systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22.
Pinet, F., Kang, M.-A., & Vigier, F. (2004). Spatial constraint modelling with a GIS extension of UML and OCL. In U. K. Wiil (Ed.), Metainformatics (pp. 160–178). Salzburg, Austria: Springer.
Ravada, S. (2008). Oracle spatial 11g technical overview. Presentation. Retrieved from, December 2010.
Reeves, T., Cornford, D., Konecny, M., Ellis, J. (2006). Modeling geometric rules in object based models: An XML/GML approach. Progress in Spatial Data Handling 3:133–148.
Servigne, S., Ubeda, T., Puricelli, A., Laurini, R. (2000). A methodology for spatial consistency improvement of geographic databases. GeoInformatica 4(1):7–34.
Truyen, F. (2005). Implementing model driven architecture using enterprise architect—MDA in practice. White paper practice, Sparx Systems. Version 1.1.
van Oosterom, P. (2006). Constraints in spatial data models, in a dynamic context, Chapter 7. In Dynamic and Mobile GIS: Investigating Changes in Space and Time (pp. 104–137). CRC Press.
Wachowicz, S., Wang, F., and Reinhardt, W. (2008). Extending geographic data modeling by adopting constraint decision table to specify spatial integrity constraints, Chapter 2. In The European Information Society: Leading the Way with Geo-information. LNGC (pp. 435–454). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Werder, S. (2009). Formalization of spatial constraints. In 12th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science. Germany: Leibniz Universität Hannover.
Zlatanova, S. (2000). On 3D topological relationships. In DEXA ’00 Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 913–919). London, UK: Greenwich.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Xu, D., van Oosterom, P., Zlatanova, S. (2017). A Methodology for Modelling of 3D Spatial Constraints. In: Abdul-Rahman, A. (eds) Advances in 3D Geoinformation. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25691-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25691-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25689-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25691-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)