SNAPVis and SPANVis: Ontologies for Recognizing Variable Vista Spatial Environments

  • Tiansi Dong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3343)

Abstract

This paper gives the SNAP and SPAN ontologies relating to recognizing variable vista spatial environments, namely, SNAPVis and SPANVis. It proposes that recognizing spatial environments is a judgment process of whether the perceived environment is compatible with the remembered one. Their compatibility is based on both their spatial changes and the commonsense knowledge of objects’ stabilities. The recognition result is determined by whether such changes are due to possible movements of related objects or not. This paper presents six SNAPVis ontologies: fiat boundary, near region, fiat parts (the three are fiat regions), classic topologic relations, qualitative orientations, and qualitative distances (the three are spatial relations) and one SPANVis ontology: the commonsense knowledge of stability of spatial objects. The paper briefly presents a cognitive map of vista spatial environments and the process of recognition.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Buelthoff, H.H., Edelman, S.: Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 60–64 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. Clementini, E., Di Felice, P.: Approximate topological relations. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 16, 173–204 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohn, A.G., Gotts, N.M.: The ‘egg-yolk’ representation of regions with indeterminate boundaries. In: Burrough, P., Frank, A.U. (eds.) Proceedings, GISDATA Specialist Meeting on Geographical Objects with Undetermined Boundaries, pp. 171–187. Francis & Taylor (1996)Google Scholar
  4. de Laguna, T.: Point, line and surface as sets of solids. The Journal of Philosophy 19, 449–461 (1922)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foos, P.W.: Constructing Cognitive Maps From Sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6(1), 25–38 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freksa, C.: Linguistic Pattern Characterization and Analysis. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley (1981)Google Scholar
  7. Freksa, C.: Conceptual Neighborhood and its role in temporal and spatial reasoning. In: Singh, M., Travé-Massuyès, L. (eds.) Decision Support Systems and Qualitative Reasoning, pp. 181–187. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland (1991)Google Scholar
  8. Goyal, R.: Similarity Assessment for Cardinal Directions between Extended Spatial Objects. PhD thesis, Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine (2000)Google Scholar
  9. Grenon, P., Smith, B.: SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4(1), 69–103 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hirtle, S.C., Jonides, J.: Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory & Cognition 13(3), 208–217 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Humphrey, G.K., Khan, S.C.: Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology 46, 170–190 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kosslyn, S.M., Pick, H.L., Fariello, G.R.: Cognitive maps in children and men. Child Development 45, 707–716 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuipers, B.: Modeling spatial knowledge., pp. 129–153. Cognitive Science (1978)Google Scholar
  14. Marr, D., Nishihara, H.K.: Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three dimensional shapes. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, pp. 269–294, B 200 (1978)Google Scholar
  15. McNamara, T.P.: Mental Representation of Spatial Relations. Cognitive Psychology 18, 87–121 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Montello, D.: Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space. In: Frank, A., Campari, I. (eds.) Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS, pp. 312–321. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  17. Piaget, J.: The Construction of Reality in the Child. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (1954)Google Scholar
  18. Randell, D., Cui, Z., Cohn, A.: A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In: Nebel, B., Swartout, W., Rich, C. (eds.) Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 165–176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1992)Google Scholar
  19. Rock, I.: The logic of perception. MIT Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  20. Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., Boyes-Braem, P.: Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidtke, H.: The House Is North of the River: Relative Localization of Extended Objects. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, pp. 415–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  22. Schmidtke, H.: A Geometry for Places: Representing Extension and Extended Objects. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M.F., Timpf, S. (eds.) COSIT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2825, pp. 221–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Siegel, A.W., White, S.H.: The development of spatial representation of large-scale environments. In: Reese, H. (ed.) Advances in child development and behaviour, pp. 9–55. Academic Press, San Diego (1975)Google Scholar
  24. Smith, B.: Fiat objects. Topoi 20(2), 131–148 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, B., Varzi, A.C.: Fiat and bona fide boundaries. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60(2), 401–420 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steven, A., Coupe, P.: Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology 13, 526–550 (1978)Google Scholar
  27. Stock, O. (ed.): Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  28. Talmy, L.: How Language Structures Space. In: Pick, H., Acredolo, L. (eds.) Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, pp. 225–281. Plenum Press (1983)Google Scholar
  29. Tarr, M.J.: Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study of the role of mental transformations in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2, 55–82 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tolman, E.C.: Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men. The Psychological Review 55(4), 189–208 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky, B.: Spatial Mental Models. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 27, 109–145 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky, B., Lee, P.: How space structures language. In: Freksa, C., Habel, C., Wender, K.F. (eds.) Spatial Cognition 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1404, pp. 157–176. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ullmer-Ehrich, V.: The Structure of Living Space Descriptions. In: Jarvella, R.J., Klein, W. (eds.) Speech, Place, and Action, pp. 219–249. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester (1982)Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, B., Baddeley, A., Young, A.: LE, A Person Who Lost Her ‘Mind’s Eye’. Neurocase 5, 119–127 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiansi Dong
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Systems Group, Department of Math and InformaticsUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations