Combining Topological and Cardinal Directional Relation Information in Qualitative Spatial Reasoning

  • Haibin Sun
  • Wenhui Li
Conference paper


Combining different knowledge representation languages is one of the main topics in Qualitative Spatial Reasoning (QSR). In this paper, we combine well known RCC8 calculus (RCC8) and cardinal direction calculus (CDC) based on regions and give the interaction tables for the two calculi. The interaction tables can be used as a tool in solving constraint satisfaction problems (CSP) and consistency checking procedure of QSR for combined spatial knowledge.


Constraint Satisfaction Problem Reference Object Spatial Object Topological Relation Cardinal Direction 
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]
    A. Gerevini, J. Renz. (2002) Combining Topological and Size Constraints for Spatial Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence (AIJ), 137(1–2): 1–42.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A Isli, V Haarslev and R Möller. (2001) Combining cardinal direction relations and relative orientation relations in Qualitative Spatial Reasoning, Technical report FBI-HH-M-304/01, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Egenhofer. (1989) A Formal Definition of Binary Topological Relationships, Third International Conference on Foundations of Data Organization and Algorithms (FODO), Paris, France.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Bennett. (1994) Spatial Reasoning with Propositional Logics Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference (KR94), edited by Doyle, J and Sandewall, E and Torasso, P, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA..Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Egenhofer and R. Franzosa. (1991) Point-Set Topological Spatial Relations, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5(2): 161–174.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Goyal and M. Egenhofer. (2000) Cardinal Directions between Extended Spatial Objects, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, (in press).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Skiadopoulos and M. Koubarakis. (2004) Composing cardinal direction relations, Artificial Intelligence, 152(2) pp. 143–171.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Renz. (2002) Qualitative Spatial Reasoning with Topological Information, LNCS 2293, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. A. Randell, A. G. Cohn and Z. Cui. (1992) Computing Transitivity Tables: A Challenge For Automated Theorem Provers. Proceedings CADE 11, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Serafino Cicerone, Paolino Di Felice. (2004) Cardinal directions between spatial objects: the pairwise-consistency problem, Information Sciences 164:165–188.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haibin Sun
    • 1
  • Wenhui Li
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyJilin UniversityChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations