Composing Cardinal Direction Relations
We study the recent proposal of Goyal and Egenhofer who presented a model for qualitative spatial reasoning about cardinal directions. Our approach is formal and complements the presentation of Goyal and Egenhofer. We focus our efforts on the operation of composition for two cardinal direction relations. We point out that the only published method to compute the composition does not always work correctly. Then we consider progressively more expressive classes of cardinal direction relations and give composition algorithms for these classes. Our theoretical framework allows us to prove formally that our algorithms are correct. Finally, we demonstrate that in some cases, the binary relation resulting from the composition of two cardinal direction relations cannot be expressed using the relations defined by Goyal and Egenhofer.
KeywordsBinary Relation Spatial Relation Reference Region Geographic Information System Cardinal Direction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.B. Bennett. Logical Representations for Automated Reasoning About Spatial Relations. PhD thesis, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1997.Google Scholar
- 2.Z. Cui, A.G. Cohn, and D.A. Randell. Qualitative and Topological Relationships in Spatial Databases. In Proceedings of SSD-93, pages 296–315, 1993.Google Scholar
- 3.M.J. Egenhofer. Reasoning about Binary Topological Relationships. In Proceedings of SSD-91, pages 143–160, 1991.Google Scholar
- 4.B. Faltings. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning Using Algebraic Topology. In Proceedings of COSIT-95, volume 988 of LNCS, 1995.Google Scholar
- 6.R. Goyal and M.J. Egenhofer. The Direction-Relation Matrix: A Representation for Directions Relations Between Extended Spatial Objects. In the annual assembly and the summer retreat of University Consortium for Geographic Information Systems Science, June 1997.Google Scholar
- 7.R. Goyal and M.J. Egenhofer. Cardinal Directions Between Extended Spatial Objects. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering, (in press), 2000. Available at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/max/RJ36.html.
- 9.M. Koubarakis. The Complexity of Query Evaluation in Indefinite Temporal Constraint Databases. Theoretical Computer Science, 171:25–60, January 1997. Special Issue on Uncertainty in Databases and Deductive Systems, Editor: L.V.S. Lakshmanan.Google Scholar
- 11.S. Lipschutz. Set Theory and Related Topics. McGraw Hill, 1998.Google Scholar
- 12.D. Papadias. Relation-Based Representation of Spatial Knowledge. PhD thesis, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 1994.Google Scholar
- 13.D. Papadias, N. Arkoumanis, and N. Karacapilidis. On The Retrieval of Similar Configurations. In Proceedings of 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH), 1998.Google Scholar
- 14.D. Papadias, Y. Theodoridis, T. Sellis, and M.J. Egenhofer. Topological Relations in the World of Minimum Bounding Rectangles: A Study with R-trees. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD-95, pages 92–103, 1995.Google Scholar
- 16.D.A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (KR’92). Morgan Kaufmann, October 1992.Google Scholar
- 18.A.P. Sistla, C. Yu, and R. Haddad. Reasoning About Spatial Relationships in Picture Retrieval Systems. In Proceedings of VLDB-94, pages 570–581, 1994.Google Scholar
- 19.S. Skiadopoulos and M. Koubarakis. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning with Cardinal Directions. Submitted for publication, 2001.Google Scholar
- 20.K. Zimmermann. Enhancing Qualitative Spatial Reasoning-Combining Orientation and Distance. In Proceedings of COSIT-93, volume 716 of LNCS, pages 69–76, 1993.Google Scholar