Fuzzy Spatial Relationships and Mobile Agent Technology in Geospatial Information Systems

  • Frederick E. Petry
  • Maria A. Cobb
  • Dia Ali
  • Rafal Angryk
  • Marcin Paprzycki
  • Shahram Rahimi
  • Lixiong Wen
  • Huiqing Yang
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 106)


This chapter discusses an integrated work in the definition and implementation of sets of fuzzy spatial relationships concerning topology and direction. We present our basic approach to defining these relationships as an extension to previous work in temporal relations. We also discuss several extensions to this approach that include refinements and alternate definitions. Two implementations are also described, one in a C++, Oracle database environment and another utilizing the expert system shell Fuzzy Clips. Finally we discuss the integration of this querying approach in an agent-based framework. Agent technology has become a leading implementation paradigm for distributed and complex systems, and has recently garnered much interest from researchers in the area of spatial databases. Agents offer many advantages with respect to intelligence abilities and mobility that can provide solutions for issues related to uncertainty in spatial data, such as those of spatial relationships.


Geographical Information System Mobile Agent Linguistic Term Reference Area Spatial Database 
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. 1.
    J. F. Allen. Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Communications of the ACM, 26 (11): 832–843, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Baldwin. Knowledge Engineering Using a Fuzzy Relational Inference Language. In IFAC Symposium on Fuzzy Information Knowledge Representation and Decision Analysis, pages 15–21, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Buckles and F. Petry. A Fuzzy Model for Relational Databases. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 7: 213–226, 1982.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Burrough and A. Frank. Geographical Objects and Indeterminate Boundaries, Taylor and Francis, London UK, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Burrough, P. van Gaans, and R. MacMillian. High-resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113 (1): 37–52, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Belgrave. The Unified Agent Architecture: A White Paper. URL. -belmarc/uaajaper.html,1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Chang and T. Wu. Retrieving the Most Similar Symbolic Pictures from Pictorial Databases. Information Processing and Management, 28 (5): 581–588, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Clementini, J. Sharma, and M. J. Egenhofer. Modelling Topological and Spatial Relations: Strategies for Query Processing. Computers and Graphics, 18 (6): 815–822, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    CLIPS Reference Manual,Version 6.10, August 5`h, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Cobb. An Approach for the Definition, Representation and Querying of Binary Topological and Directional Relationships between Two-Dimensional Objects, Ph. D. Thesis, Tulane University, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Cobb and F. Petry. Modeling Spatial Data within a Fuzzy Framework. Journal of Amer. Soc. Information Science, 49: 253–266, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Cobb, F. Petry, and V. Robinson. Special Issue: Uncertainty in Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113 (1), 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. Cross and A. Firat. Fuzzy objects for geographical information systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113 (1): 19–36, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Dutta. Topological Constraints. A Representational Framework for Approximate Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. In SSD’91 (Advances in Spatial Databases: 2nd Symposium), pages 161–180, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. J. Egenhofer and R. D. Franzosa. Point-set Topological Spatial Relations. Int. Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5 (2): 161–174, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ARC/INFO ® User’s Guide: ARC /INFO ® 6.0 Data Model, Concepts and Key Terms, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Galton. Perturbation and Dominance in the Qualitative Representation of Continuous State-Spaces, Technical Report 270, Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Giardina. Fuzzy Databases and Fuzzy Relational Associative Processors, Technical Report, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken NJ, 1979.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Goodchild and S. Gopal (Eds.). The Accuracy of Spatial Databases, Taylor and Francis, Basingstoke, UK, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. W. Guesgen. Spatial Reasoning Based on Allen’s Temporal Logic, Technical Report TR-89–049, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. P. Kriegel, M. Schiwietz, R. Schneider, and B. Seeger. Performance comparison of Point and Spatial Access Methods. In: A. Buchmann, 0. Gunther, T. Smith, and Y. Wang (Eds.), Design and Implementation of Large Spatial Databases, LNCS 409, pages 89–114, Santa Barbara, CA, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. MaGuire. An Overview and Definition of GIS. Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, D. MaGuire, M. Goodchild, and D. Rhind (Eds.), 1:9–20, Longman, Essex GB, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Mukerjee and G. Joe. A Qualitative Model for Space. In AAAI-90 (8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence), pages 721–727, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Nabil, J. Shepherd, and A. H. H. Ngu. 2D Projection Interval Relationships: A Symbolic Representation of Spatial Relationships. In SSD ‘85 (Advances in Spatial Databases: 42nd Symposium), pages 292–309, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Papadias and Y. Theodoridis. Spatial Relations, Minimum Bounding Rrectangles, and Spatial Data Dtructures. Int. J. Geographical Information Science, 11:111–138, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Rahimi, A. Ali, and D. Ali. An Investigation on Intelligent Software-Agent Technology. In IEMS and ICandIE Joined Int. Conference, Cocoa Beach, Florida, 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. Robinson. Implications of Fuzzy Set Theory for Geographic Databases. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems, 12: 89–98, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    V. Robinson. Interactive Machine Acquisition of a Fuzzy Spatial Relation. Computers and Geosciences, 6: 857–872, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    V. Robinson and A. Frank. About Different Kinds of Uncertainty in Geographic Information Systems. In AUTOCARTO 7, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. Samet. Applications of Spatial Data Structures: Computer Graphics, Image Processing, and GIS. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Sharma and D. M. Flewelling. Inferences from Combined Knowledge about Topology and Direction. In SSD’95 (Advances in Spatial Databases: 42nd Symposium), pages 279–291, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Stoms. Reasoning with Uncertainty in Intelligent Geographic Information Systems. In GIS’87 (2nd Annual Int. Conf on Geographic Information Systems), pages 693–699, American Soc. for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Falls Church VA, 1987.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    F. Wang. A fuzzy grammar and possibility theory-based natural language user interface for spatial queries. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113 (1): 147–159, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Winter. Topological Relations between Discrete Regions. In SSD’95 (Advances in Spatial Databases: 42nd Symposium), pages 310–327, Portland, ME, USA, August 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Winter. Uncertainty of Topological Relations in GIS. In ISPRS Commission III Symposium, pages 924–930, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. M. Wygant. CLIPS — A Powerful Development and Delivery Expert System Tool. Computers in Engineering, 17 (1/4): 546–549, 1989.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. Zadeh. Test-Score Semantics for Natural Languages and Meaning Representation via PRUF. Empirical Semantics, B. Rieger (Ed.), pages 281–349, Brockmeyer, Bochum, GR, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick E. Petry
    • 1
    • 5
  • Maria A. Cobb
    • 2
  • Dia Ali
    • 2
  • Rafal Angryk
    • 3
  • Marcin Paprzycki
    • 2
  • Shahram Rahimi
    • 3
  • Lixiong Wen
    • 4
  • Huiqing Yang
    • 3
  1. 1.Naval Research LaboratoryMapping, Charting & Geodesy Stennis Space CenterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science & StatisticsUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  3. 3.Center for Computational ScienceUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  4. 4.Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer ScienceTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  5. 5.Tulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations