Improving the Consistency of Multi-LOD CityGML Datasets by Removing Redundancy

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The CityGML standard enables the modelling of some topological relationships, and the representation in multiple levels of detail (LODs). However, both concepts are rarely utilised in reality. In this paper we investigate the linking of corresponding geometric features across multiple representations. We describe the possible topological cases, show how to detect these relationships, and how to store them explicitly. A software prototype has been implemented to detect matching features within and across LODs, and to automatically link them by establishing explicit topological relationships (with XLink). The experiments ran on our test datasets show a considerable number of matched geometries. Further, this method doubles as a lossless data compression method, considering that the storage footprint in the consolidated datasets has been reduced from their dissociated counterparts.

Keywords

Multi-LOD Topology XLink CityGML Compression 

References

  1. Akmalia R, Setan H, Majid Z, Suwardhi D, Chong A (2014) TLS for generating multi-LOD of 3D building model. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. Proceedings of the 8th international symposium of the digital earth (ISDE8) vol. 18, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  2. Aringer K, Roschlaub R (2014) Bavarian 3D building model and update concept based on LiDAR, image matching and cadastre information. In: Innovations in 3D geo-information sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkin EM, Chew LP, Huttenlocher DP, Kedem K, Mitchell JSB (1991) An efficiently computable metric for comparing polygonal shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 13(3):209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baig SU, Abdul-Rahman A (2013) Generalization of buildings within the framework of CityGML. Geo-spatial Inf Sci 16(4):247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benner J, Geiger A, Gröger G, Häfele KH, Löwner MO (2013) Enhanced LOD concepts for virtual 3D city models. In: Isikdag U (ed.) ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. Proceedings of the ISPRS 8th 3D geoinfo conference and WG II/2 workshop, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 51–61Google Scholar
  6. Biljecki F, Zhao J, Stoter J, Ledoux H (2013) Revisiting the concept of level of detail in 3D city modelling. In: Isikdag U (ed.) ISPRS Annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. Proceedings of the ISPRS 8th 3D GeoInfo conference and WG II/2 workshop, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 63–74Google Scholar
  7. Biljecki F, Ledoux H, Stoter J, Zhao J (2014a) Formalisation of the level of detail in 3D city modelling. Comput Environ Urban Syst 48:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biljecki F, Ledoux H, Stoter, J (2014b) Error propagation in the computation of volumes in 3D city models with the monte carlo method. In: ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. Proceedings of the ISPRS/IGU joint international conference on geospatial theory, processing, modelling and applications, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalamagas T, Cheng T, Winkel KJ, Sellis T (2004) Clustering XML documents by structure. In: Panayiotopoulos T, Vouros GA (eds) Lecture notes in computer science, methods and applications of artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dilo A, van Oosterom P, Hofman A (2009) Constrained tGAP for generalization between scales: The case of Dutch topographic data. Comput Environ Urban Syst 33(5):388–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellul C, Altenbuchner J (2014) Investigating approaches to improving rendering performance of 3D city models on mobile devices. Geo-spatial Inf Sci 17(2):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Mekawy M, Östman A, Shahzad K (2011) Towards interoperating CityGML and IFC building models: a unified model based approach. In: Kolbe TH, König, G, Nagel C (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international 3D geoinfo conference. Advances in 3D geo-information sciences. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography, Springer, pp. 73–93Google Scholar
  13. Gröger G, Coors V (2011) Modeling guide for 3D objects. Tech. rep., SIG3DGoogle Scholar
  14. Gröger G, Plümer L (2005) How to get 3-D for the price of 2-D? Topology and consistency of 3-D urban GIS. GeoInformatica 9(2):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gröger G, Plümer L (2009) How to achieve consistency for 3D city models. GeoInformatica 15(1):137–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gröger G, Plümer L (2011) Topology of surfaces modelling bridges and tunnels in 3D-GIS. Comput Environ Urban Syst 35(3):208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gröger G, Plümer L (2012a) CityGML—Interoperable semantic 3D city models. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 71:12–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gröger G, Plümer L (2012b) Transaction rules for updating surfaces in 3D GIS. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 69:134–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Häfele KH (2011) CityGML model of the FJK-Haus. Institut für Angewandte Informatik (IAI), Karlsruher Institut für TechnologieGoogle Scholar
  20. Huffman D (1952) A method for the construction of minimum-redundancy codes. Proc IRE 40(9):1098–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO/TC 184: ISO/PAS 17506:2012 (2012) Industrial automation systems and integration—COLLADA digital asset schema specification for 3D visualization of industrial dataGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO: ISO/IEC 19775-1:2013 (2013) Information technology—Computer graphics, image processing and environmental data representation–Extensible 3D (X3D)—Part 1: architecture and base components (2013)Google Scholar
  23. ISO: ISO/IEC 9834-8:2008(E) (2008) Information technology—open systems interconnection—procedures for the operation of OSI registration authorities: generation and registration of universally unique identifiers (UUIDs) and their use as ASN.1 object identifier componentsGoogle Scholar
  24. Iwaszczuk D, Stilla U (2010) A concept for assignment of textures to partially occluded faces of 3D city models stored in CityGML. In: Kolbe TH, König G, Nagel C (eds) International archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. Proceedings of the 5th international 3D geoinfo conference, Berlin, Germany, pp 57–62Google Scholar
  25. Kolbe TH (2009) Representing and exchanging 3D city models with CityGML. In: Zlatanova S, Jiyeong L (eds) 3D geo-information sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lake R, Burggraf D, Trninić M, Rae L (2004) Geography mark-up language (GML), foundation for the geo-web. Wiley, UK, pp 1–408Google Scholar
  27. Ledoux H (2013) On the validation of solids represented with the international standards for geographic information. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 28(9):693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ledoux H, Meijers M (2011) Topologically consistent 3D city models obtained by extrusion. Int J Geog Inf Sci 25(4):557–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Löwner M-O, Benner J, Gröger G, Häfele KH (2013) New concepts for structuring 3D city models—an extended level of detail concept for CityGML buildings. In: Murgante B, Misra S, Carlini M, Torre CM, Nguyen HQ, Taniar D, Apduhan BO, Gervasi O (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Proceedings of the 13th international conference computational science and its applications–ICCSA 2013, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, pp 466–480Google Scholar
  30. Mao B, Harrie L, Ban Y (2012) Detection and typification of linear structures for dynamic visualization of 3D city models. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36(3):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Open Geospatial Consortium (2012) OGC city geography markup language (CityGML) encoding standard 2.0.0Google Scholar
  32. Open Geospatial Consortium (2012) OGC geography markup language (GML)—extended schemas and encoding rules 3.3.0Google Scholar
  33. Salomon D (2007) Data compression—The complete reference, 4 edn. Springer LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (2008): COLLADA—digital asset schema release 1.5.0. The Khronos groupGoogle Scholar
  35. Stadler A, Nagel C, König G, Kolbe TH (2009) Making interoperability persistent: a 3D geo database based on CityGML. In: Jiyeong L, Zlatanova S (eds) 3D geo-information sciences. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–192Google Scholar
  36. Steinhage V, Behley J, Meisel S, Cremers AB (2010) Automated updating and maintenance of 3D city models. In: Peled A (ed) ISPRS joint workshop on “core spatial databases–updating, maintenance and services—from theory to practice”, Haifa, Israel, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  37. Stoter J, Visser T, van Oosterom P, Quak W, Bakker N (2011) A semantic-rich multi-scale information model for topography. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25(5):739–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. XML Core Working Group (2010): XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.1 URL http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/
  39. Zhang X, Ai T, Stoter J, Zhao X (2014) Data matching of building polygons at multiple map scales improved by contextual information and relaxation. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 92(C) 98:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao J, Qingg Z, Du Z, Feng T, Zhang Y (2012) Mathematical morphology-based generalization of complex 3D building models incorporating semantic relationships. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 68(C) 68:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zheng Y, Cohen-Or D, Averkiou M, Mitra NJ (2014) Recurring part arrangements in shape collections. Compu Graph Forum 33(2):115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section GIS Technology, Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Kadaster, Product and Process InnovationApeldoornThe Netherlands
  3. 3.GeonovumAmersfoortThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations