Combined Extraction of Directional and Topological Relationship Information from 2D Concave Objects

  • Pascal Matsakis
  • Dennis Nikitenko


The importance of topological and directional relationships between spatial objects has been stressed in different fields, notably in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In an earlier work, we introduced the notion of the F-histogram, a generic quantitative representation of the relative position between two 2D objects, and showed that it can be of great use in understanding the spatial organization of regions in images. Here, we illustrate that the F-histogram constitutes a valuable tool for extracting directional and topological relationship information. The considered objects are not necessarily convex and their geometry is not approximated through, e.g., Minimum Bounding Rectangles (MBRs). The F-histograms introduced in this chapter are coupled with Allen’s temporal relationships based on fuzzy set theory. Allen’s relationships are commonly extended into the spatial domain for GIS purposes, and fuzzy set theoretic approaches are widely used to handle imprecision and achieve robustness in spatial analysis. For any direction in the plane, the F-histograms define a fuzzy 13-partition of the set of all object pairs, and each class of the partition corresponds to an Allen relation. Lots of directional and topological relationship information as well as different levels of refinements can be easily obtained from this approach, in a computationally tractable way.


Geographic Information System Longitudinal Section Membership Degree Combine Extraction Fuzzy Relation 
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. Allen JF (1983) Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Communications of the ACM 26(11):832–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloch I (1999) Fuzzy Relative Position between Objects in Image Processing: New Definition and Properties Based on a Morphological Approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 7(2):99–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clementini E (2002) Path Composition of Positional Relations Integrating Qualitative and Fuzzy Knowledge. In: Matsakis P, Sztandera L (eds) Applying Soft Computing in Defining Spatial Relations. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-Verlag, 106:17–39Google Scholar
  4. Clementini E, Di Felice O (1997) Approximate Topological Relations. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 16:173–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clementini E, Sharma J, Egenhofer MJ (1994) Modelling Topological and Spatial Relations: Strategies for Query Processing. Computers and Graphics 18(6):815–822Google Scholar
  6. Cobb M, Petry F, Robinson V (2000) Special Issue: Uncertainty in Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113(1)Google Scholar
  7. Cohn AG (1995) The Challenge of Qualitative Spatial Reasoning. Computing Surveys 27(3):323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohn AG, Bennett B, Gooday J, Gotts NM (1997) Representing and Reasoning with Qualitative Spatial Relations about Regions. In: Stock O (ed) Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. Kluwer, pp 97–134Google Scholar
  9. Dutta S (1991) Approximate Spatial Reasoning: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Constraints. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 5:307–331Google Scholar
  10. Freeman J (1975) The Modeling of Spatial Relations. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 4:156–171Google Scholar
  11. Freksa C (1992) Temporal Reasoning Based on Semi-Intervals. Artificial Intelligence 54:199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodchild M, Gopal S (1990) (eds) The Accuracy of Spatial Databases. Taylor and Francis, Basingstoke, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Guesgen HW (2002) Fuzzifying Spatial Relations. In: Matsakis P, Sztandera L (eds) Applying Soft Computing in Defining Spatial Relations. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-Verlag, 106:1–16Google Scholar
  14. Krishnapuram R, Keller J, Ma Y (1993) Quantitative Analysis of Properties and Spatial Relations of Fuzzy Image Regions. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 1(3):222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuipers B (1978) Modeling Spatial Knowledge. Cognitive Science 2:129–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuipers BJ, Levitt TS (1988) Navigation and Mapping in Large-Scale Space. AI Magazine 9(2):25–43Google Scholar
  17. Malki J, Zahzah EH, Mascarilla L (2002) Indexation et recherche d’image fondées sur les relations spatiales entre objets. Traitement du Signal 18(4)Google Scholar
  18. Matsakis P (1998) Relations spatiales structurelles et interprétation d’images. Ph. D. Thesis, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Matsakis P (2002) Understanding the Spatial Organization of Image Regions by Means of Force Histograms: A Guided Tour. In: Matsakis P, Sztandera L (eds) Applying Soft Computing in Defining Spatial Relations. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-Verlag, 106:99–122Google Scholar
  20. Matsakis P, Andréfouët S (2002) The Fuzzy Line Between Among and Surround. FUZZIEEE 2002 (IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems), Honolulu, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsakis P, Wendling L (1999) A New Way to Represent the Relative Position between Areal Objects. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 21(7):634–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsakis P, Keller J, Wendling L, Marjamaa J, Sjahputera O (2001) Linguistic Description of Relative Positions in Images. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B 31(4):573–588Google Scholar
  23. Matsakis P, Keller J, Sjahputera O, Marjamaa J (2004) The Use of Force Histograms for Affine-Invariant Relative Position Description. IEEE Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 26(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nabil M, Shepherd J, Ngu AHH (1995) 2D Projection Interval Relationships: A Symbolic Representation of Spatial Relationships. SSD’ 95 (Advances in Spatial Databases: 42nd Symposium) pp 292–309Google Scholar
  25. Petry F, Cobb M, Ali D, Angryk R, Paprzycki M, Rahimi S, Wen L, Yang H (2002) Fuzzy Spatial Relationships and Mobile Agent Technology in Geospatial Information Systems. In: Matsakis P, Sztandera L (eds) Applying Soft Computing in Defining Spatial Relations. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-Verlag, 106:123–155Google Scholar
  26. Robinson V (1988) Implications of Fuzzy Set Theory for Geographic Databases. Computers, Environment, and Urban Svstems 12:89–98Google Scholar
  27. Sharma J, Flewelling FM (1995) Inferences from Combined Knowledge about Topology and Direction. SSD’95 (Advances in Spatial Databases: 42nd Symposium) pp 279–291Google Scholar
  28. Skubic M, Matsakis P, Chronis G, Keller J (2003) Generating Multi-level Linguistic Spatial Descriptions from Range Sensor Readings Using the Histogram of Forces. Autonomous Robots 14(1):51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoms D (1987) Reasoning with Uncertainty in Intelligent Geographic Information Systems. GIS’87 (2nd Annual International Conference on Geographic Information Systems) pp 693–699Google Scholar
  30. Wang F, Hall GB, Subaryono (1990) Fuzzy Information Representation and Processing in Conventional GIS Software: Database Design and Application. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 4:261–283Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal Matsakis
    • 1
  • Dennis Nikitenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing and Information ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations