GeoInformatica

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 275–316 | Cite as

Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning with the Region Connection Calculus

  • Anthony G. Cohn
  • Brandon Bennett
  • John Gooday
  • Nicholas Mark Gotts
Article

Abstract

This paper surveys the work of the qualitative spatial reasoning group at the University of Leeds. The group has developed a number of logical calculi for representing and reasoning with qualitative spatial relations over regions. We motivate the use of regions as the primary spatial entity and show how a rich language can be built up from surprisingly few primitives. This language can distinguish between convex and a variety of concave shapes and there is also an extension which handles regions with uncertain boundaries. We also present a variety of reasoning techniques, both for static and dynamic situations. A number of possible application areas are briefly mentioned.

qualitative spatial reasoning spatial logics topology shape vague boundaries 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, J. F. “An interval-based representation of temporal knowledge,” Proceedings 7th IJCAI, pp. 221–226, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, J. F. “Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26(11): 832–843, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, J. F. “Towards a general theory of action and time,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 23(2): 123–154, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asher, N. and Vieu, L. “Toward a geometry of common sense: A semantics and a complete axiomatization of mereotopology,” Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal,, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett, B. “Some observations and puzzles about composing spatial and temporal relations,” in R. Rodríguez (ed.), Proceedings ECAI-94 Workshop on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, 1994a.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett, B. Spatial reasoning with propositional logics, in J. Doyle, E. Sandewall and P. Torasso (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference (KR94), Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, 1994b.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bennett, B. “Modal logics for qualitative spatial reasoning,” Bulletin of the Interest Group on Propositional and Predicate Logics (IGPL), 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bennett, B. The application of qualitative spatial reasoning to GIS, in R. Abrahart (ed.), Proc First Int. Conf. on GeoComputation, Vol. I, Leeds, pp. 44–47, 1996a.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bennett, B. Carving up space: steps towards construction of an absolutely complete theory of spatial regions, in L. P. J.J. Alfres and E. Orlowska (eds), Proceedings of JELIA '96, pp. 337–353, 1996b.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bennett, B., Isli, A. and Cohn, A. G. “When does a composition table provide a complete and tractable proof procedure for a relational constraint language?” Proceedings of the IJCAI-97 workshop on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, Nagoya, Japan, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biacino, L. and Gerla, G. “Connection structures,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Casati, R. and Varzi, A. Holes and Other Superficialities, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke, B. L. “A calculus of individuals based on ‘connection’,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 23(3): 204–218, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke, B. L. “Individuals and points,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 26(1): 61–75, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clementini, E. and Di Felice, P. An algebraic model for spatial objects with undetermined boundaries, in P. Burrough and A. M. Frank (eds), Proceedings, GISDATA Specialist Meeting on Geographical Entities with Undetermined Boundaries,, Taylor Francis, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clementini, E. and Di Felice, P. “Approximate topological relations,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clementini, E., Di Felice, P. and Oosterom, P. A small set of formal topological relationships suitable for end user interatction, in D. Abel and B. C. Ooi (eds), Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Large Spatial Databases, SSD, number 692 in LNCS, Springer, pp. 277–295, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clementini, E., Sharma, J. and Egenhofer, M. J. “Modeling topological spatial relations: strategies for query processing,” Computers and Graphics, Vol. 18(6): 815–822, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohn, A. G. “A more expressive formulation of many sorted logic,” Journal of Automated Reasoning, Vol. 3: 113–200, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohn, A. G. Modal and non-modal qualitative spatial logics, in F. D. Anger, H. W. Guesgen and J. van Benthem (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, IJCAI-93, IJCAI, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohn, A. G. A hierarchcial representation of qualitative shape based on connection and convexity, in A. Frank (ed.), Proc COSIT95, LNCS, Springer Verlag, pp. 311–326, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohn, A. G. Calculi for qualitative spatial reasoning, in J. P. J Calmet, J A Campbell (ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Mathematical Computation, Vol. 1138 of LNCS, Springer Verlag, pp. 124–143, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M. “Spatial regions with undetermined boundaries,” Proceedings of Gaithesburg Workshop on GIS, ACM, 1994a.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M. A theory of spatial regions with indeterminate boundaries, in C. Eschenbach, C. Habel and B. Smith (eds), Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science, 1994b.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M. The ‘egg-yolk’ representation of regions with indeterminate boundaries, in P. Burrough and A. M. Frank (eds), Proceedings, GISDATA Specialist Meeting on Geographical Objects with Undetermined Boundaries, Francis Taylor, pp. 171–187, 1996a.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M. A mereological approach to representing spatial vagueness, in J. D. L C Aiello and S. Shapiro (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Pro 5th Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 230–241, 1996b.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohn, A. G., Bennett, B., Gooday, J. and Gotts, N. “Representing and reasoning with qualitative spatial relations about regions,” in O. Stock (ed.), Temporal and spatial reasoning, Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohn, A. G., Gooday, J. M. and Bennett, B. A comparison of structures in spatial and temporal logics, in R. Casati, B. Smith and G. White (eds), Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences: Proceedings of the 16th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohn, A. G., Gotts, N. M., Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., Bennett, B. and Gooday, J. M. “Exploiting temporal continuity in temporal calculi,” in R. G. Golledge and M. J. Egenhofer (eds), Spatial and Temporal Reasoning in Geographical Information Systems, Elsevier, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohn, A. G., Randell, D. A. and Cui, Z. “Taxonomies of logically defined qualitative spatial relations,” Int. J of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 43: 831–846, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cohn, A. G., Randell, D. A., Cui, Z. and Bennett, B. “Qualitative spatial reasoning and representation,” in N. P. Carreté and M. G. Singh (eds), Qualitative Reasoning and Decision Technologies, CIMNE, Barcelona, pp. 513–522, 1993.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cui, Z., Cohn, A. G. and Randell, D. A. Qualitative simulation based on a logical formalism of space and time, Proceedings AAAI-92, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, pp. 679–684, 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cui, Z., Cohn, A. G. and Randell, D. A. “Qualitative and topological relationships in spatial databases,” in D. Abel and B. C. Ooi (eds), Advances in Spatial Databases, Vol. 692 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 293–315, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis, E., Gotts, N. M. and Cohn, A. G. “Constraint networks of topological relations and convexity,” Technical report, Courant Institute, New York University, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Laguna, T. “Point, line and surface as sets of solids,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 19: 449–461, 1922.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dornheim, C. “Vergleichende analyse topologischer ansaetze des qualitativen raeumlichen siessens,” Studienarbeit, fachereich informatik,Universitaet Hamburg, 1995.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Egenhofer, M. Reasoning about binary topological relations, in O. Gunther and H. J. Schek (eds), Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Large Spatial Databases, SSD '91 (Zurich, Switzerland). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 525, pp. 143–160, 1991.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Egenhofer, M. Topological similarity, Proc FISI workshop on the Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science, Vol. 37 of Reports of the Doctoral Series in Cognitive Science, University of Hamburg, 1994.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Egenhofer, M. and Franzosa, R. “Point-set topological spatial relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems Voo. 5(2): 161–174, 1991.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Egenhofer, M. J. and Al-Taha, K. K. Reasoning about gradual changes of topological relationships, in A. U. Frank, I. Campari and U. Formentini (eds), Theories and Methods of Spatio-temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, Vol. 639 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 196–219, 1992.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Egenhofer, M. J. and Franzosa, R. D. “On the equivalence of topological relations,” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 9(2): 133–152, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Egenhofer, M. J., Clementini, E. and Di Felice, P. “Toplogical relations between regions with holes,” Int. Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 8(2), 129–144, 1994.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elkan, C. The paradoxical success of fuzzy logic, IEEE Expert, Vol. 9(4): 3–8, 1994. Followed by responses and a reply.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Faltings, B. and Struss, P. (eds). Recent Advances in Qualitative Physics, MIT Press: Cambridge, Ma, 1992.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fernyhough, J., Cohn, A. G. and Hogg, D. C. “Real time generation of semantic regions from video sequences,” Proc. ECCV96, LNCS, Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fernyhough, J., Cohn, A. G. and Hogg, D. C. Event recognition using qualitative reasoning on automatically generated spatio-temporal models from visual input, 1997.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fernyhough, J. H. Generation of qualitative spatio-temporal representations from visual input, PhD Thesis, 1997.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Forbus, K., Nielsen, P. and Faltings, B. “Qualitative kinematics: A framework,” Proceedings IJCAI-87, pp. 430–436, 1987.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Frank, A. and Kuhn, W. (eds). Spatial Information Theory: a theoretical basis for GIS, Vol. 988 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frank, A. U. and Campari, I. (eds). Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS: Proceedigns of COSIT'93, Vol. 716 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Freksa, C. “Temporal reasoning based on semi-intervals,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 54: 199–227, 1992.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Galton, A. “Towards a qualitative theory of movement,” in A. Frank and W. Kuhn (eds), Spatial Information Theory — Proceedings of the international conference COSIT'95, number 998 in LNCS, Sorubger, Austria, pp. 377–396, 1995a.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Galton, A. Taking dimension seriously in qualitative spatial reasoning, in W. Wahlster (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 501–505, 1996.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Galton, A. P. “A critical examination of Allen's theory of action and time,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 42(2): 159–188, 1990.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Galton, A. P. A qualitative approach to continuity, Proc. Time, Space and Movement, Ch. Bonas, France, 1995b.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gooday, J. and Cohn, A. G. “Transition-based qualitative simulation,” Proceeding of the 10th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, AAAI Press, pp. 74–82, 1996a.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gooday, J. and Cohn, A. G. Visual language syntax and semantics: A spatial logic approach, in K. Marriott and B. Meyer (eds), Proc Workshop on Theory of Visual Languages, Gubbio, Italy, 1996b.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gooday, J. M. and Cohn, A. G. “Using spatial logic to describe visual languages,” Artificial Intelligence Review, 1995. This paper will also appear in Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing (Vol. IV), ed P MckEvitt, Kluwer, 1996.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gooday, J. M. and Galton, A. P. “The transition calculus: A high-level formalism for reasoning about action and change,” Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence, 1996.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gotts, N. M. Defining a ‘doughnut’ made difficult, in C. Eschenbach, C. Habel and B. Smith (eds), Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science, Vol. 37 of Reports of the Doctoral programme in Cognitive Science, University of Hamburg, 1994a.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gotts, N. M. How far can we ‘C’? defining a ‘doughnut’ using connection alone, in J. Doyle, E. Sande-wall and P. Torasso (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference (KR94), Morgan Kaufmann, 1994b.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gotts, N. M. An axiomatic approach to topology for spatial information systems, Technical report, Report 96.25, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1996a.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gotts, N. M. “Formalising commonsense topology: The INCH calculus,” Proc. Fourth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, 1996b.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gotts, N. M. Toplogy from a single primitive relation: defining topological properties and relations in terms of connection, Technical report Report 96.23, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1996c.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gotts, N. M. Using the RCC formalism to describe the topology of spherical regions, Technical report, Report 96.24, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1996d.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gotts, N. M. and Cohn, A. G., “A mereological approach to spatial vagueness,” Proceedings, Qualitative Reasoning Workshop 1995 (QR-95), 1995.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gotts, N. M., Gooday, J. M. and Cohn, A. G. A connection based approach to common-sense topological description and reasoning, The Monist, Vol. 79(1): 51–75, 1996.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Grigni, M., Papadias, D. and Papadimitriou, C. Topological inference, in C. Mellish (ed.), proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-95), Vol. I, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 901–906, 1995.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Grzegorczyk, “A. Undecidability of some topological theories,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, Vol. 38: 137–152, 1951.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Haarslev, V. “Formal semantics of visual languages using spatial reasoning,” Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1995.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Haarslev, V. “A fully formalized theory for describing visual notations,” Proceedings of the AVI'96 post-conference Workshop on Theory of Visual Languages, Gubbio, Italy, 1996.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Haarslev, V. and Möller, R. A qualitative spatial reasoner: progress report, in L. Ironi (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Qualitative Reasoning, Tuscany, Italy, 1997.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hayes, P. J. “Naive physics I: Ontology for liquids,” in J. R. Hobbs and B. Moore (eds), Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, Ablex, pp. 71–89, 1985a.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hayes, P. J. “The second naive physics manifesto,” in J. R. Hobbs and B. Moore (eds), Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, Ablex, pp. 1–36, 1985b.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hernández, D. Qualitative Representation of Spatial Knowledge, Vol. 804 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kahn, K. M. and Saraswat, V. A. Complete visualizations of concurrent programs and their executions, Technical Report Tech. Rpt. SSL-90-83 [P90-00099], Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre, Palo Alto, California, 1990.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kratochvíl, J. “String graphs ii: recognizing string graphs is NP-hard,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, Vol. 52: 67–78, 1991.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ladkin, P. “Time representation: A taxonomy of interval relations,” Proceedings AAAI-86, Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, pp. 360–366, 1986.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ladkin, P. The Logic of Time Representation, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Kestrel Institute report KES.U.87.13, 1987.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ladkin, P. and Maddux, R. “On binary constraint problems,” Journal of the ACM, Vol. 41(3): 435–469, 1994.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lehmann, F. and Cohn, A. G. “The EGG/YOLK reliability hierarchy: Semantic data integration using sorts with prototypes,” Proc. Conf. on Information Knowledge Management, ACM Press, pp. 272–279, 1994.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Leonard, H. S. and Goodman, N. “The calculus of individuals and its uses,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 5: 45–55, 1940.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Leśniewski, S. O podstawack matematyki, Prezeglad Filosoficzny, 1927–1931.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mavrovouniotis, M. and Stephanopoulos, G. “Formal order-of-magnitude reasoning in process engineering,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 12: 867–881, 1988.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    McCune, W. Otter 2.0 users guide, Technical report, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1990.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    McKinsey, J. and Tarski, A. “The algebra of topology,” Annals of Methematics, Vol. 45: 141–191, 1944.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mukerjee, A. and Joe, G. “A qualitative model for space,” Proceedings AAAI-90, Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, pp. 721–727, 1990.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nebel, B. “Computational properties of qualitative spatial reasoning: First results,” Procedings of the 19th German AI Conference, 1995a.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nebel, B. “Reasoning about temporal relations: a maximal tractable subset of Allen's interval algebra,” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 42(1): 43–66, 1995b.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nerode, A. Some let cures on intuitionistic logic, in S. Homer, A. Nerode, R. Platek,, G. Sacks and A. Scedrov (eds), Logic and Computer Science, Vol. 1429 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, pp. 12–59, 1990.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nicod, J. Geometry in the Sensible World, Doctoral thesis, Sorbonne, 1924, English translation in Geometry and Induction, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Pratt, I. and Schoop, D. A complete axiom system for polygonal mereotopology of the plane, Technical Report UMCS-97-2-2, University of Manchester, 1997.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Raiman, O. “Order of magnitude reasoning,” AAAI-86: Proceedings of the National Conference on AI, pp. 100–104, 1986.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Randell, D. A. and Cohn, A. G. “Exploiting lattices in a theory of space and time,” Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 23(6–9): 459–476, 1992. Also appears in “Semantic Networks”, ed. F. Lehmann, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 459–476, 1992.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Randell, D. A., Cohn, A. G. and Cui, Z. “Computing transitivity tables: A challenge for automated theorem provers,” Proceedings CADE 11, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Randell, D. A., Cui, Z. and Cohn, A. G. “A spatial logic based on regions and connection,” Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp. 165–176, 1992.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Randell, D. and Cohn, A. Modelling topological and metrical properties of physical processes, in R. Brachman, H. Levesque and R. Reiter (eds), Proceedings 1st International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp. 55–66, 1989.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Renz, J. and Nebel, B. On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: a maximal tractable fragment of the Region Connection Calculus, in M. E. Pollak (ed.), Proceedings of IJCAI-97, 1997.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Schlieder, C. “Representing visible locations for qualitative navigation,” in N. P. Carreté and M. G. Singh (eds), Qualitative Reasoning and Decision Technologies, CIMNE: Barcelona, pp. 523–532, 1993.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Simons, P. Parts: A Study In Ontology, Clarendon Press: Oxford 1987.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sklansky, J. “Measuring concavity on a rectangular mosaic,” IEEE Trans. on Computers, Vol. C-21(12): 1355–1364, 1972.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Smith, B. Ontology and the logistic analysis of reality, in Analytic Phenomenology, G. Haefliger and P.M. Simons, (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publsihers: The Netherlands, 1994.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Stock, O. (ed.) Temporal and spatial reasoning, Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Tarski, A. “Der aussagenkalkül und die topologie [sentential calculus and topology],” Fundamenta Mathematicae, Vol. 31: 103–134, 1938. English translation in A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Tarski, A. Foundations of the geometry of solids, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford Clarendon Press, chapter 2. trans. J.H. Woodger, 1956.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Tarski, A. “What is elementary geometry?” in L. Brouwer, E. Beth and A. Heyting (eds), The Axiomatic Method (with special reference to geometry and physics), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 16–29, 1959.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Van Benthem, J. F. A. K. The Logic of Time, D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Varzi, A. “Reasoning about space: the hole story,” Logic and Logical Philosophy, Vol. 4: 3–39, 1996a.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Varzi, A. “Spatial reasoning in a holey world,” in P. Torasso (ed.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, number 728 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 326–336, 1996b.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Vieu, L. Sémantique des relations spatiales et inférences spatio-temporelles, PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, 1991.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Vilain, M. and Kautz, H. “Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning,” Proceedings of the 5th AAAI conference, Philadelphia, 377–382, 1986.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Weld, D. S. and De Kleer, J. (eds). Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, Morgan Kaufman: San Mateo, Ca, 1990.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Whitehead, A. N. Process and Reality, The MacMillan Company: New York, 1929.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Worboys, M. F. and Bofakos, P. “A canonical model for a class of areal spatial objects,” in D. Abel and B. C. Ooi (eds), Advances in Spatial Databases: Third International Symposium, SSD'93, Vol. 692 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony G. Cohn
    • 1
  • Brandon Bennett
    • 1
  • John Gooday
    • 1
  • Nicholas Mark Gotts
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Artificial Intelligence, School of Computer StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsEngland

Personalised recommendations