Changes in Topological Relations when Splitting and Merging Regions

  • Max J. Egenhofer
  • Dominik Wilmsen


This paper addresses changes in topological relations as they occur when splitting a region into two. It derives systematically what qualitative inferences can be made about binary topological relations when one region is cut into two pieces. The new insights about the possible topological relations obtained after splitting regions form a foundation for high-level spatio- temporal reasoning without explicit geometric information about each object’s shapes, as well as for transactions in spatio-temporal databases that want to enforce consistency constraints.


Topological Relation Land Parcel Consistency Constraint Graphical Information System Split Part 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Clementini E, di Felice P, Califano G (1995) Composite Regions in Topological Queries. Information Systems 20(7):579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egenhofer M (1994) Deriving the Composition of Binary Topological Relations. J of Visual Languages and Computing 5(2):133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Egenhofer M, Al-Taha K (1992) Reasoning about Gradual Changes of Topological Relationships. In: Frank A, Campari I, Formentini U (eds), Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space (= LNCS 639), pp 196–219Google Scholar
  4. Egenhofer M, Clementini E, di Felice P (1994) Topological Relations Between Regions with Holes. Int J of Geographical Information Systems 8(2):129–142Google Scholar
  5. Egenhofer M, Franzosa R (1991) Point-Set Topological Relations. Int J of Geographical Information Systems 5(2):161–174Google Scholar
  6. Egenhofer M, Sharma J (1993) Assessing the Consistency of Complete and Incomplete Topological Information. Geographical Systems 1(2):47–68Google Scholar
  7. Güting R, Schneider M (2005) Moving Objects Databases. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Hornsby K, Egenhofer M (1998) Identity-Based Change Operations for Composite Objects. In: Poiker T, Chrisman N (eds) Eighth Int Symp on Spatial Data Handling, Vancouver, Canada, pp 202–213Google Scholar
  9. Papadimitriou C, Suciu D, Vianu V (1999) Topological Queries in Spatial Databases. J of Computer and System Sciences 58(1):29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pfoser D, Jensen C (2003) Indexing of Network Constrained Moving Objects. ACM GIS 2003:25–32Google Scholar
  11. Tryfona N, Egenhofer M (1997) Consistency among Parts and Aggregates: A Computational Model. Transactions in GIS 1(3):189–206Google Scholar
  12. Smith T, Park K (1992) Algebraic Approach to Spatial Reasoning. Int J of Geographical Information Systems 6(3):177–192Google Scholar
  13. Wolfson O, Xu B, Chamberlain S, Jiang L (1998) Moving Objects Databases: Issues and Solutions. In: Rafanelli M, Jarke M (eds) 10th Int Conf on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, pp 111–122Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max J. Egenhofer
    • 1
  • Dominik Wilmsen
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Department of Spatial Information Science and EngineeringUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations