Advertisement

A Methodology for Modelling of 3D Spatial Constraints

  • Daniel Xu
  • Peter van Oosterom
  • Sisi Zlatanova
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

In this work we demonstrate a new methodology to conceptualise and implement geo-constraints in 3D, which has not been widely explored yet. This is done in four stages from natural language to implementation, in which geometric primitives and Object Constraint Language (OCL) play a crucial role to formulate the constraints. A database including various 3D topographic objects (e.g. buildings, trees, roads, grass, water-bodies and terrains) from CityGML (no constraints yet) is used as a case study to apply the developed methodology. In this research, a first attempt to formulate 3D geo-constraints in OCL is made. Unified Modelling Language (UML) class diagram has been extended with graphical symbols for indicating constraints between classes (in addition to the additional compartment within a class for a class constraint). These constraint expressions can be tested and translated to other models/implementations when the OCL standard is extended with spatial types and operations. During this research, new types of constraints are defined as follows: general-level constraints (applicable to all object sub-classes), parameterised constraints (containing numeric values, e.g. maximum distance), constraints allowing exceptional instances (to resolve cases that have not been defined) and constraints relating to multi-scale representations (to check the consistency between two levels of detail which model the same object). Additionally common sense rules to detect conflicting constraints are specified as well.

Keywords

Unify Modelling Language Object Constraint Language Unify Modelling Language Model Model Drive Architecture Geometric Primitive 
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.

References

  1. Casanova, M., Wallet, T., & D’Hondt, M. (2000). Ensuring quality of geographic data with UML and OCL. In A. Evans, S. Kent and B. Selic (Eds.), UML’00 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language: Advancing the Standard (pp. 225–239). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Chimiak-Opoka, J., Demuth, B., Awenius, A., Chiorean, D., Gabel, S., Hamann, L., et al. (2010). OCL tools report based on the IDE4OCL feature model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling (OCL 2010) (Vol. 36, p. 18).Google Scholar
  3. Clementini, E., Di Felice, P., & van Oosterom, P. (1993). A small set of formal topological relationships suitable for end-user interaction. In The 3rd International Symposium on Large Spatial Databases.Google Scholar
  4. Cockcroft, S. (1997). A taxonomy of spatial data integrity constraints. GeoInformatica, 1(4), 327–343.Google Scholar
  5. Cockcroft, S. (2004). The design and implementation of a repository for the management of spatial data integrity constraints. GeoInformatica 8(1):49–69.Google Scholar
  6. Duboisset, M., Pinet, F., Kang, M.-A., & Schneider, M. (2005). Precise modeling and verification of topological integrity constraints in spatial databases: From an expressive power study to code generation principles. In L. Delcambre, et al. (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling—ER 2005 (pp. 465–482). Klagenfurt, Austria: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Egenhofer, M. (2011). Reasoning with complements. In Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Recent Developments and New Directions (pp. 261–270).Google Scholar
  8. Egenhofer, M. J. (1989). A formal definition of binary topological relationships. LNCS 367:457–472.Google Scholar
  9. Elmasri, R., & Navathe, S. B. (2003). Fundamental of database systems (4 ed.). Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Emgård, L., & Zlatanova, S. (2008). Implementation alternatives for an integrated 3D information model. In Advances in 3D Geoinformation Systems, LNGC (pp. 313–329).Google Scholar
  11. Geomatics, M. (2010). Measure the climate, model the city—acquiring and storing temporal and spatial data for climate research. Technical report. GM2100 Synthesis Project, 112 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Hespanha, J., van Bennekom-Minnema, J., van Oosterom, P., & Lemmen, C. (2008). The model driven architecture approach applied to the land administration domain model version 1.1, with focus on constraints specified in the object constraint language. In FIG Working Week (p. 19).Google Scholar
  13. INSPIRE. (2010a, April 26). D2.8.i.5 INSPIRE data specification on addresses guidelines.Google Scholar
  14. INSPIRE. (2010b, April 26). D2.8.i.6 INSPIRE data specification on cadastral parcels guidelines.Google Scholar
  15. ISO. (2008, September 17). 19107:2003. In Geographic information—Spatial schema. ISO.Google Scholar
  16. Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., & Bast, W. (2003). MDA Explained: The model driven architecture: Practice and promise. Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  17. Kolbe, P. D. T. H., König, G., Nagel, C., & Stadler, A. (2009). 3D-Geo-Database for CityGML. Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformation Science, Technische Universität Berlin, 2.0.1 edition.Google Scholar
  18. Louwsma, J. (2004). Constraints in geo-information models—applied to geo-VR in landscape architecture. Master’s thesis, TU Delft. GIRS-2004-17, 104 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Louwsma J, Zlatanova S, van Lammeren R, van Oosterom P (2006) Specifying and implementing constraints in giswith examples from a geo-virtual reality system. GeoInformatica 10:531–550.Google Scholar
  20. Mäs, S., Wang, F., & Reinhardt, W. (2005). Using ontologies for integrity constraint definition. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Quality’05, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  21. Oracle. (2010a). Oracle Database, PL/SQL Language Reference, 11g Release 2 (11.2). E17126-04 edition, 756 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Oracle. (2010b). Oracle Spatial Developer’s Guide 11g Release 2 (11.2), 916 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Pinet, F., Duboisset, M., & Soulignac, V. (2007). Using UML and OCL to maintain the consistency of spatial data in environmental information systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22.Google Scholar
  24. Pinet, F., Kang, M.-A., & Vigier, F. (2004). Spatial constraint modelling with a GIS extension of UML and OCL. In U. K. Wiil (Ed.), Metainformatics (pp. 160–178). Salzburg, Austria: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Ravada, S. (2008). Oracle spatial 11g technical overview. Presentation. Retrieved from, December 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Reeves, T., Cornford, D., Konecny, M., Ellis, J. (2006). Modeling geometric rules in object based models: An XML/GML approach. Progress in Spatial Data Handling 3:133–148.Google Scholar
  27. Servigne, S., Ubeda, T., Puricelli, A., Laurini, R. (2000). A methodology for spatial consistency improvement of geographic databases. GeoInformatica 4(1):7–34.Google Scholar
  28. Truyen, F. (2005). Implementing model driven architecture using enterprise architect—MDA in practice. White paper practice, Sparx Systems. Version 1.1.Google Scholar
  29. van Oosterom, P. (2006). Constraints in spatial data models, in a dynamic context, Chapter 7. In Dynamic and Mobile GIS: Investigating Changes in Space and Time (pp. 104–137). CRC Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wachowicz, S., Wang, F., and Reinhardt, W. (2008). Extending geographic data modeling by adopting constraint decision table to specify spatial integrity constraints, Chapter 2. In The European Information Society: Leading the Way with Geo-information. LNGC (pp. 435–454). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Werder, S. (2009). Formalization of spatial constraints. In 12th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science. Germany: Leibniz Universität Hannover.Google Scholar
  32. Zlatanova, S. (2000). On 3D topological relationships. In DEXA ’00 Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 913–919). London, UK: Greenwich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Xu
    • 1
  • Peter van Oosterom
    • 2
  • Sisi Zlatanova
    • 3
  1. 1.Accenture Technology SolutionsAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Section GIS Technology, Department OTBTU DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Architecture and Built Environment, Department of UrbanismTU DelftDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations