Advertisement

GeoInformatica

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 239–267 | Cite as

Multi-level Topological Relations Between Spatial Regions Based Upon Topological Invariants

  • Min Deng
  • Tao ChengEmail author
  • Xiaoyong Chen
  • Zhilin Li
Article

Abstract

Topological relations have played important roles in spatial query, analysis and reasoning. In a two-dimensional space (IR2), most existing topological models can distinguish the eight basic topological relations between two spatial regions. Due to the arbitrariness and complexity of topological relations between spatial regions, it is difficult for these models to describe the order property of transformations among the topological relations, which is important for detailed analysis of spatial relations. In order to overcome the insufficiency in existing models, a multi-level modeling approach is employed to describe all the necessary details of region–region relations based upon topological invariants. In this approach, a set of hierarchically topological invariants is defined based upon the boundary–boundary intersection set (BBIS) of two involved regions. These topological invariants are classified into three levels based upon spatial set concept proposed, which include content, dimension and separation number at the set level, the element type at the element level, and the sequence at the integrated level. Corresponding to these hierarchical invariants, multi-level formal models of topological relations between spatial regions are built. A practical example is provided to illustrate the use of the approach presented in this paper.

Keywords

topological relations spatial set topological invariant neighborhood 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the RGC of Hong Kong (Project PolyU 5228/06E) and the National Science Foundation of China under grant numbers 40501053 and 40571127.

References

  1. 1.
    R.F. Abler. “The national science foundation national center for geographic information and analysis,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 1(4):303–326, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Breunig. Integration of Spatial Information for Geo-information Systems. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Chen, C. Li, Z. Li, and C. Gold. “A Voronoi-based 9-intersection model for spatial relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15(3):201–220, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Clementini, P. Di Felice, and P. van Oosterom. “A small set for formal topological relationships suitable for end-user interaction,” in D. Abel and B.C. Ooi (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Databases—Third International Symposium, SSD’93, Singapore, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 692. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 277–295, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Clementini, P. Di Felice, and G. Califano. “Composite regions in topological queries,” Information Systems, Vol. 20(7):579–594, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Clementini and P. Di Felice. “Topological invariants for lines,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 10:38–54, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Clementini, J. Sharma, and M. Egenhofer. “Modeling topological spatial relations: Strategies for query processing,” Computers and Graphics, Vol. 18(6):815–822, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Z. Cui, A.G. Cohn, and D.A. Randell. “Qualitative and topological relationships in spatial databases,” in D. Abel and B.C. Ooi (Eds.), Advances in Spatial DatabasesThird International Symposium, SSD’93, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 296–315, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Deng. “Approaches for topological relations between spatial regions with uncertainty,” Ph.D. thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Egenhofer and R. Franzosa. “Point-set topological spatial relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 5(2):161–174, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Egenhofer and J. Herring. “Categorizing binary topological relationships between regions, lines and points in geographic databases,” in M. Egenhofer and J. Herring (Eds.), A Framework for the Definition of Topological Relationships and an Approach to Spatial Reasoning within this Framework, Santa Barbara, CA, 1–28, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Egenhofer and K. Al-Taha. “Reasoning about gradual changes of topological relationships,” in A. Frank, I. Campari, and U. Formentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference GIS—from Space to Territory: Theories and Methods of Spatio-temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, Pisa, Italy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 639. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 196–219, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Egenhofer. “A model for detailed binary topological relationships,” Geomatica, Vol. 47(3–4):261–273, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Egenhofer, E. Clementini, and P. Di Felice. “Topological relations between regions with holes,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 8(2):129–144, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Egenhofer, E. Clementini, and P. Di Felice. “Evaluating inconsistencies among multiple representations,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Egenhofer and R. Franzosa. “On the equivalence of topological relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 9(2):133–152, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Faltings. “Qualitative spatial reasoning using algebraic topology,” in Proceedings of COSIT—95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 988, pp. 17–30, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Frank. “Qualitative spatial reasoning about distances and directions in geographic space,” Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 3:343–371, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Hernández. “Relative representation of spatial knowledge: The 2-D case,” in D. Mark and A. Frank (Eds.), Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.R. Herring. “The mathematical modeling of spatial and non-spatial information in geographic information systems,” in D. Mark and A. Frank (Eds.), Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 313–350, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Kainz, M. Egenhofer, and L. Greasley. “Modeling spatial relations and operations with partially ordered sets,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 7(3):215–229, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Z. Li, R. Zhao, and J. Chen. “A Voronoi-based spatial algebra for spatial relations,” Progress in Natural Science, Vol. 12(7):528–536, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.M. Mark and M. Egenhofer. “Modeling spatial relations between lines and regions: Combining formal mathematical models and human subjects testing,” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 21(3):195–212, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D.J. Peuquet and C.X. Zhan. “An algorithm to determine the directional relationship between arbitrary-shaped polygons in the plane,” Pattern Recognition, Vol. 20(1):65–74, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. “A spatial logical based on regions and connection,” in M. Kaufmann and M. San (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York, 165–176, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Renz and B. Nebel. “On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: A maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 108(1–2):69–123, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A.P. Sistla, C. Yu, and R. Haddad. “Reasoning about spatial relationships in picture retrieval systems,” in Proceedings of VLDB—94, Santiago, Chile, pp. 570–581, Morgan Kaufman: San Francisco, CA, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Land Surveying and Geo-InformaticsThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Space Technology Application and Research ProgramAsian Institute of TechnologyKlong LuangThailand

Personalised recommendations