, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 257–279 | Cite as

Imprecision in Finite Resolution Spatial Data

  • Michael Worboys


An important component of spatial data quality is the imprecision resulting from the resolution at which data are represented. Current research on topics such as spatial data integration and generalization needs to be well-founded on a theory of multi-resolution. This paper provides a formal framework for treating the notion of resolution and multi-resolution in geographic spaces. It goes further to develop an approach to reasoning with imprecision about spatial entities and relationships resulting from finite resolution representations. The approach is similar to aspects of rough and fuzzy set theories. The paper concludes by providing the beginnings of a geometry of vague spatial entities and relationships.

uncertainty vagueness rough set fuzzy set resolution spatial reasoning data quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B.L. Clarke. “A calculus of individuals based on ‘connection’,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 22:204–218, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B.L. Clarke. “Individuals and points,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 26:61–75, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.G. Cohn and N.M. Gotts. “The ‘egg-yolk’ representation of regions with indeterminate boundaries,” in P. Burrough, and A. Frank (Eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, Taylor and Francis: London, 171–187, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Couclelis. “Towards an operation typology of geographic entities with ill-defined boundaries,” in P. Burrough and A. Frank (Eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, Taylor and Francis: London, 45–55, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Z. Cui, A.G. Cohn, and D.A. Randell. “Qualitative and topological relationships in spatial databases,” in D. Abel, B.C. Ooi (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Databases, Proceedings of SSD'93, Singapore, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 692, Springer: Berlin, 296–315, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B.A. Davey and H.A. Priestley. Introduction to Lattices and Order, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T.J. Davis and C.P. Keller. “Modelling uncertainty in natural resource analysis using fuzzy sets and Monte Carlo simulation: slope stability prediction,” Int. Jour. of GIS, Vol. 11-5:409–434, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Erwig and M. Schneider. “Vague regions.” In Proceedings of the 5th Int. Symp. in Spatial Databases (SSD'97), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1262, Springer: Berlin, 298–320, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Euzenat. “An algebraic approach to granularity in qualitative time and space representation.” Proc. Int. Joint Conference on AI, ACM Publications: Montreal CA, 894–900, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Fisher. “The pixel: a snare and a delusion,” Int. Jour. Remote Sensing, Vol. 18-3:679–685, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. de Floriani, P. Marzano, and E. Puppo. “Hierarchical terrain models: survey and formalization,” In Proceedings SAC' 94, Phoenix, AR, 323–327, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.F. Goodchild. “Data models and data quality: problems and prospects, ” in M.F. Goodchild, B.O. Parks, and L.T. Steyaert (Eds.), Visualization in Geographical Information Systems, John Wiley: New York, 141–149, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.H. Güting and M. Schneider. “Realms: A foundation for spatial data types in database systems,” in D. Abel, B.C. Ooi (Eds.), Advances in Spatial Databases, Proceedings of SSD'93, Singapore,Lecture Notes in Computer Science 692, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 14–35, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G.J. Hunter and M.F. Goodchild. “Dealing with error in spatial databases: A simple case study,” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 61-5:529–537, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Leung. “On the imprecision of boundaries,” Geographical Analysis, Vol. 19:125–151, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.M. Mark and F. Csillag. “The nature of boundaries on ‘area-class’ maps,” Cartographica, Vol. 26:65–77, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Parsons. “Current approaches to handling imperfect information in data and knowledge bases,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 8-3:353–372, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Z. Pawlak. “Rough sets,” Int. Journal of Inf. and Comp. Sci., Vol. 11-5:341–356, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Z. Pawlak. Rough Sets-Theoretical Aspects of Resoning about Data, Kluwer, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Z. Pawlak. “Hard and soft sets,” in V.S. Alagar, S. Bergler, and F.Q. Dong (Eds.), Proceedings of RSSC'94, The Third International Conference on Rough Sets and Soft Computing, San Jose State University: San Jose, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 1976.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Simons, Parts. A Study in Ontology. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Smith. “Mereotopology-A theory of parts and boundaries,” Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 20:287–303, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W.R. Tobler. “Application of image processing techniques to map processing,” in Proc. 1 st Int. Symp. on Spatial Data Handling, Universität Zurich-Irchel, Zurich Vol. 1:140–144, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Wang and G. Brent Hall. “Fuzzy representation of geographical boundaries in GIS,” Int. Jour. of GIS Vol. 10-5:573–590, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G.J. Williams. “Templates for spatial reasoning in responsive geographical information systems,” Int. Jour. of GIS, Vol. 9-2:117–131, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L.A. Zadeh. “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, Vol. 8:338–353, 1965.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    L.A. Zadeh. “Fuzzy logic,” IEEE Computer, Vol. 21:83–93, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Worboys
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKeele UniversityStaffsUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations