, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 333–352 | Cite as

A semantic and language-based representation of an environmental scene

  • Jean-Marie Le YaouancEmail author
  • Éric Saux
  • Christophe Claramunt


The modeling of a landscape environment is a cognitive activity that requires appropriate spatial representations. The research presented in this paper introduces a structural and semantic categorization of a landscape view based on panoramic photographs that act as a substitute of a given natural environment. Verbal descriptions of a landscape scene provide the modeling input of our approach. This structure-based model identifies the spatial, relational, and semantic constructs that emerge from these descriptions. Concepts in the environment are qualified according to a semantic classification, their proximity and direction to the observer, and the spatial relations that qualify them. The resulting model is represented in a way that constitutes a modeling support for the study of environmental scenes, and a contribution for further research oriented to the mapping of a verbal description onto a geographical information system-based representation.


Spatial cognition Landscape perception Scene descriptions 



The authors gratefully thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, and Alcino Ferreira for his careful language reviewing and comments.


  1. 1.
    Appleyard D, Gerson M, Lintell M (1981) Livable streets. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bar-Yosef A (2001) musical time organization and space concept: a model of cross-cultural analogy. Ethnomusicology 45(3):423–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beard R, Volpe M (2005) Handbook of word-formation, studies in natural language and linguistic theory, chap. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology, vol 64. Springer, Netherlands, p 464Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlson LA (2008) On the “whats” and “hows” of “where”: the role of salience in spatial descriptions. In: Freksa C, Newcombe NS, Gärdenfors P, Wölfl S (eds) Spatial cognition VI. Learning, reasoning, and talking about space. LNCS, vol 5248. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevriaux Y, Saux E, Claramunt C (2005) A landform-based approach for the representation of terrain silhouettes. In: Shahabi C, Boucelma O (eds) ACMGIS’05: proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international workshop on geographic information systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 260–266Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Couclelis H (1998) Worlds of information: the geographic metaphor in the visualization of complex information. Cartogr Geogr Inf Syst 25(4):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deleuze G, Guattari F (1980) Mille plateaux. Critique. Editions de MinuitGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egenhofer M, Mark D (1995) Naive geography. In: Frankand AU, Kuhnand W (eds) COSIT’95: conference on spatial information theory. LNCS, vol 988. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank AU (2007) Spatiotemporal databases: the chorochronos approach, chap. Ontology for Spatio-Temporal Databases. Springer-Verlag, pp 9–78Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freksa C (1992) Using orientation information for qualitative spatial reasoning. In: Frank AU, Campari I, Formentini U (eds) Proceedings of the international conference GIS - from space to territory: theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning on theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space. LNCS, vol 639. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 162–178Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granö J (1929) Reine geographie. No 2 in 202. Acta Geographica. Tr. as Pure Geography, reprinted in English from Johns Hopkins Press in 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber T (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology in information systems. In: Guarino N (ed) Formal ontology in information systems, vol 46. IOS Press, Trento, Italy, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herskovits A (1986) Language and spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in english. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirtle S, Jonides J (1985) Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Mem & Cog 13(3):208–217Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hohne H, Coker C, Levinson S, Rabiner L (1983) On temporal alignment of sentences of natural and synthetic speech. Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process 38(12):807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Institut Géographique National (2008) BD TOPO. Tech rep, Institut Géographique NationalGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnston R (1999) Geographical information systems: principles, techniques, management and applications, chap. Geography and GIS, vol 1. Wiley and Sons, Inc, p 404Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaplan S (1979) Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. In: Lsner GH, Smardon RC (eds) Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Berkeley, CA, pp 241–248Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuipers B (1978) Modeling spatial knowledge. Cogn Sci 2(2):129–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuipers B (1982) The “map in the head” metaphor. Environ Behav 14(2):202–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landragin F (2006) Visual perception, language and gesture: a model for their understanding in multimodal dialogue systems. Signal Process 86(12):3578–3595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Le Yaouanc JM, Saux E, Claramunt C (2008) A semantic and language based model of landscape scenes. In: Il-Yeol Song MP (ed) ER 2008 workshops. LNCS, vol 5232. Springer-Verlag, pp 334–343Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levelt W (1982) Linearization in describing spatial networks. Processes, beliefs, and questions. Essays on Formal Semantics of Natural Language and Natural Language Processing, pp 199–220Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levinson S (1996) Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: cross-linguistic evidence. Language and Space, pp 109–169Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ligozat G, Nowak J, Schmitt D (2007) From language to pictorial representations. In: Poznańskie W (ed) Proc. of the Language and technology conference. Poznan, PolandGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lynch K (1960) The image of the City. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mainwaring SD, Tversky B, Ohgishi M, Schiano DJ (2003) Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spat Cogn Comput 3(1):3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meitner M (2004) Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landsc Urban Plan 68(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Montello D (1992) The geometry of environmental knowledge. In: Frank AU, Campari I, Formentini U (eds) Proceedings of the international conference GIS - from space to territory: theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning on theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space, vol 639. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, pp 136–152Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montello D (1993) Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS. LNCS, vol 716. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 312–321Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muller P (1998) Eléments d’une théorie du mouvement pour la formalisation du raisonnement spatio-temporel de sens commun. Unpublished PhD report, Université Paul Sabatier de ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peuquet DJ, Ci-Xiang Z (1987) An algorithm to determine the directional relationship between arbitrarily-shaped polygons in the plane. Pattern Recogn 20(1):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shafer E, Richards T (1974) A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. In: Canter D, Lee T (eds) Psychology and the built environment. John Wiley, pp 71–79Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shuttleworth S (1980) The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. J Environ Manag 11(1):61–76Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith B, Mark D (2001) Geographical categories: an ontological investigation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(7):591–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith B, Mark DM (2003) Do mountains exist? Towards an ontology of landforms. Environ Plann, B Plann Des 30(3):411–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith B, Varzi A (1997) Fiat and bona fide boundaries: towards an ontology of spatially extended objects. In: Hirtle SC, Frank AU (eds) COSIT’97: Conference on spatial information theory. LNCS, vol 1329. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sorrows ME, Hirtle SC (1999) The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freksa C, Mark DM (eds) COSIT’99: conference on spatial information theory. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 37–50Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stewart T, Middleton P, Downton M, Ely D (1984) Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. J Environ Psychol 4:283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taylor HA, Tversky B (1996) Perspective in spatial descriptions. J Mem Lang 35(3):371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tolman E (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and man. Psychol Rev 55(4):189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tversky B (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages and spatial mental models. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) COSIT’93: conference on spatial information theory. LNCS, vol 716. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 14–24Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tversky B, Lee PU (1998) How space structures language. In: Freksa C, Habel C, Wender KF (eds) Spatial Cognition: an interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge, vol 1404. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–175Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Williams D (1953) On the elements of being. Rev Metaphys 7:3–18. Reprinted in Metaphysics: The Big Questions, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Marie Le Yaouanc
    • 1
    Email author
  • Éric Saux
    • 1
  • Christophe Claramunt
    • 1
  1. 1.French Naval Academy Research InstituteBCRM BrestBrest Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations