GeoInformatica

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 131–164 | Cite as

Provably correct and complete transaction rules for updating 3D city models

Article

Abstract

The shapes of our cities change very frequently. These changes have to be reflected in data sets representing urban objects. However, it must be assured that frequent updates do not affect geometric-topological consistency. This important aspect of spatial data quality guarantees essential assumptions on which users and applications of 3D city models rely: viz. that objects do not intersect, overlap or penetrate mutually, or completely cover one another. This raises the question how to guarantee that geometric-topological consistency is preserved when data sets are updated. Hence, there is a certain risk that plans and decisions which are based on these data sets are erroneous and that the tremendous efforts spent for data acquisition and updates become vain. In this paper, we solve this problem by presenting efficient transaction rules for updating 3D city models. These rules guarantee that geometric-topological consistency is preserved (Safety) and allow for the generation of arbitrary consistent 3D city models (Completeness). Safety as well as completeness is proven with mathematical rigor, guaranteeing the reliability of our method. Our method is applicable to 3D city models, which define—besides the terrain surface—complex spatial objects like buildings with rooms and storeys as interior structures, as well as bridges and tunnels. Those objects are represented as aggregations of solids, and their surfaces are complex from a topology point of view. 3D GIS models like CityGML, which are widely used to represent cities, provide the means to define semantics, geometry and topology, but do not address the problem of maintaining consistency. Hence, our approach complements CityGML.

Keywords

Transaction rules Consistency Surfaces 3D models Handles 2-manifolds 

References

  1. 1.
    Alexandroff P (1961) Elementary concepts of topology. Dover New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong MA (1997) Basic topology. Undergraduate texts in mathematics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boguslawski P, Gold C (2009) Construction operators for modelling 3D objects and dual navigation structures. In: Lee J, Zlatanova S (eds) 3D geo-information sciences. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 47–59Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boguslawski P, Gold C (2010) Euler operators and navigation of multi-shell building models. In: Neutens T, Maeyer P (eds) Developments in 3D Geo-information sciences. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egenhofer MJ, Frank AU, Jackson JP (1990) A topological data model for spatial databases. In: Buchmann AP, Günther O, Smith S, Wang Y (eds) Design and implementation of large spatial databases, first symposium SSD ’89 Santa Barbara, California, July 17/18, 1989 Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 409. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 271–286Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egenhofer MJ (1989) A formal definition of binary topological relationships. In: Litwin W (ed) Foundations of data organization and algorithms, 3rd International Conference, FODO 1989 Paris, France, June 21–23, 1989 Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 367. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 457–473Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foley JD, van Dam A, Feiner SK, Hughes JF (1995) Computer graphics: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley systems programming series, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gold C (2003) But is it GIS? J Geosp Eng 5(2):11–26Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gröger G, Kolbe TH, Czerwinski A, Nagel C (2008) OpenGIS City Geography Markup Language (CityGML) encoding standard. Version 1.0.0., Open Geospatial Consortium, OGC Doc. No. 08-007r1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gröger G, Kolbe TH, Schmittwilken J, Stroh V, Plümer L (2005) Integrating versions, history and levels-of-detail within a 3D geodatabase. In: Gröger G, Kolbe TH (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international ISPRS/EuroSDR/DGPF-Workshop on Next Generation 3D City Models, Bonn, June 21–22. EuroSDR, pp. 35–40Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gröger G, Plümer L (1997) Provably correct and complete transaction rules for GIS. In: Laurini R, Bergougnoux P (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (ACM-GIS'97). ACM Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 40–43Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gröger G, Plümer L (2005) How to get 3-D for the price of 2-D-topology and consistency of 3-D urban GIS. Geoinformatica 9(2):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gröger G, Plümer L (2009) Updating 3D City Models—how to preserve geometric-topological consistency. In: Agrawal D, Aref W, Lu C, Mokbel MF, Scheuermann P, Shahabi C, Wolfsohn O (eds) Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (ACM SIGSPATIAL GIS 2009), Seattle, Washington, November 4.-6., 2009. ACM Press, New York, pp. 536–539Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gröger G, Plümer L (2011) Topology of surfaces modelling bridges and tunnels in 3D-GIS. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 35:208–216. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.10.001 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gröger G, Plümer L (2011) How to achieve consistency for 3D city models. Geoinformatica 15(1):137–165. doi:10.1007/s10707-009-0091-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gröger G, Plümer L (2011) Transaction rules for updating surfaces in 3D GIS. Submitted to ISPRS JournalGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gröger G, Reuter M, Plümer L (2004) Shall 3-D city models be managed in a commercial database? Geoinformationssysteme (GIS) 17(9):9–15Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guptill SC, Morrison JL (eds) (1997) Elements of spatial data quality, 1st edn. Elsevier Science Oxford. 202 pGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hatcher A (2001) Algebraic topology, 10th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herring J (2001) The OpenGIS abstract specification, topic 1: feature geometry (ISO 19107 Spatial Schema), open geospatial consortium, OGC document number 01–101. OGCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kainz W (1997) Logical consistency. In: Guptill SC, Morrison JL (eds) Elements of spatial data quality. Elsevier Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazar BM, Kothuri RV, Oosterom P, Ravada S (2008) On valid and invalid three-dimensional geometries. In: Oosterom P, Zlatanova S, Penninga F, Fendel E (eds) Advances in 3D geoinformation systems. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Springer, Berlin, pp 10–46Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolbe TH, Gröger G, Plümer L (2008) CityGML - 3D city models for emergency response. In: Zlatanova S, Li J (eds) Geospatial information technology for emergency response. International society for photogrammetry and remote sensing book series, vol 6. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 257–274Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kufoniyi O (1995) Spatial coincidence modelling, automated database updating and data consistency in vector GIS. International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC). Enschede, The Netherlands, ITC Publication No. 28Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kufoniyi O, Molenaar M, Bouloucos T (1995) Topologic consistency operations in vector maps. GIS 8(4):7–13Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee J, Zlatanova S (2009) A 3D data model and topological analyses for emergency response in urban areas. In: Zlatanova S, Li S (eds) Geospatial information technology for emergency response. ISPRS book series. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 143–168Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mäntylä M (1988) An introduction to solid modeling. Principles of computer science, Computer Science PressGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Molenaar M (1992) A topology for 3D vector maps. ITC Journal 1992–1Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mortenson ME (1997) Geometric modelling. WileyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Okabe A, Boots B, Sugihara K, Nok Chiu S (2000) Spatial Tessellations, Concepts and applications of Voronoi diagrams, 2nd ed. Wiley series in probability and statistics, Wiley ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oracle Cooperation (2009) Oracle spatial developers guide 11 g release 1 (11.1)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Portele C (2007) OpenGIS Geography Markup Language (GML) encoding standard, version 3.2.1, OGC Doc. No. 07–036. Open Geospatial ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tele Atlas (2006) Accurace in digital mapping. White paper. www.teleatlas.com
  35. 35.
    Tse ROC, Gold C (2002) TIN meets CAD—Extending the TIN concept to GIS. In: Sloot P (ed) Computational science-ICCS 2002, Proc. of the International conference International Conference on Computational Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 21–24, 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2329–2331. Springer, Berlin, New York. pp. 135–143Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ueda K (1985) Guarded horn clauses. In: Logic Programming’85. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 221. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 168–179Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vretanos PA (2004) Web feature service implementation specification, version: 1.1.0, Open Geospatial Consortium, OGC Doc.-No. 04–094Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Widom J, Ceri S (1996) Active database systems. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zender H, Martínez Mozos O, Jensfelt P, Kruijff G-M, Burgard W (2008) Conceptual spatial representations for indoor mobile robots. Rob Autom Syst 56(6):493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zlatanova S (2000) 3D GIS for urban development. ITC dissertation; vol. 69, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences; Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology Enschede, The Netherlands; Graz, AustriaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Geodesy and GeoinformationUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations