Constraints

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 241–280 | Cite as

Constraint Networks of Topological Relations and Convexity

  • Ernest Davis
  • Nicholas Mark Gotts
  • Anthony G. Cohn
Article

Abstract

This paper studies the expressivity and computational complexity of networks of constraints of topological relations together with convexity. We consider constraint networks whose nodes are regular regions (a regular region is one equal to the closure of its interior) and whose constraints have the following forms: (i) the eight “base relations” of [12], which describe binary topological relations of containment and adjacency between regions; (ii) the predicate, “X is convex.” We establish tight bounds on the computational complexity of this language: Determining whether such a constraint network is consistent is decidable, but essentially as hard as determining whether a set of comparable size of algebraic constraints over the real numbers is consistent. We also show an important expressivity result for this language: If r and s are bounded, regular regions that are not related by an affine transformation, then they can be distinguished by a constraint network. That is, there is a constraint network and a particular node in that network such that there is a solution where the node is equal to r, but no solution where the node is equal to s.

constraints topology convexity RCC8 expressivity complexity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Allen (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Comm. ACM 26: 832–843.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Basu, R. Pollack, and M.-F. Roy (1994). On the combinatorial and algebraic complexity of quantifier elimination. In Proc. Foundations of Computer Science, pages 632–641. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bennett (1994). Spatial reasoning with propositional logics. In Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 51–62, Bonn, Germany. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. G. Cohn (1995). A hierarchical representation of qualitative shape based on connection and convexity. In A. Frank, editor, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Proceedings of COSIT'95, LNCS 988, pages 311–326, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. G. Cohn, D. A. Randell and Z. Cui (1995). Taxonomies of logically defined qualitative spatial relations. In N. Guarino and R. Poli, editors, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, special issue on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, 43(5–6): 831–846.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. S. M. Coxeter (1987). Projective Geometry. (2nd ed.) Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Faltings (1995). Qualitative spatial reasoning using algebraic topology. In A. Frank, editor, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS: Proceedings of COSIT'95, LNCS 988, pages 17–30, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Grzegorczyk (1951). Undecidability of some topological theories. Fundamenta Mathematicae 38: 137–152.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Mishra (1997). Computational real algebraic geometry. In J.E. Goodman and J. O'Rourke, editors, CRC Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, CRC Series, Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics, pages 537–558, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. A. Randell and A. G. Cohn (1989). Modelling topological and metrical properties in physical processes. In Proc. of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 357–367, Toronto, Ontario. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. A. Randell and A. G. Cohn (1992). Naive topology: modelling the force pump. In P. Struss and B. Faltings, editors, Advances in Qualitative Physics, pages 177–192, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. G. Cohn (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 165–176, Boston, MA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Renz and B. Nebel (1997). On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: a maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus, In Proc. of the 15th IJCAI, pages 522–527, Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Tarski (1951). A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Tarski (1956). Sentential calculus and topology. in L. Brouwer, E. Beth, and A. Heyting, editors, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernest Davis
    • 1
  • Nicholas Mark Gotts
    • 2
  • Anthony G. Cohn
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceNew York UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Land Use Science Group, Macaulay Land Use Research InstituteAberdeenUK
  3. 3.School of Computer StudiesUniversity of LeedsEngland

Personalised recommendations