Unifying Quantitative, Semi-quantitative and Qualitative Spatial Relation Knowledge Representations Using Mathematical Morphology

  • Isabelle Bloch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2616)


One of the powerful features of mathematical morphology lies in its strong algebraic structure, that finds equivalents in set theoretical terms, fuzzy sets theory and logics. Moreover this theory is able to deal with global and structural information since several spatial relationships can be expressed in terms of morphological operations. The aim of this paper is to show that the framework of mathematical morphology allows to represent in a unified way spatial relationships in various settings: a purely quantitative one if objects are precisely defined, a semiquantitative one if objects are imprecise and represented as spatial fuzzy sets, and a qualitative one, for reasoning in a logical framework about space.


mathematical morphology spatial relationships spatial reasoning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N. Asher and L. Vieu. Toward a Geometry of Common Sense: A Semantics and a Complete Axiomatization of Mereotopology. In IJCAI’95, pages 846–852, San Mateo, CA, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    I. Bloch. Fuzzy Relative Position between Objects in Image Processing: a Morphological Approach. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(7):657–664, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    I. Bloch. Spatial Representation of Spatial Relationships Knowledge. In A.G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR 2000, pages 247–258, Breckenridge, CO, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    I. Bloch. Using Mathematical Morphology Operators as Modal Operators for Spatial Reasoning. In ECAI 2000, Workshop on Spatio-Temporal Reasoning, pages 73–79, Berlin, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    I. Bloch. Mathematical Morphology and Spatial Relationships: Quantitative, Semi-Quantitative and Symbolic Settings. In L. Sztandera and P. Matsakis, editors, Applying Soft Computing in Defining Spatial Relationships, pages 63–98. Physica Verlag, Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. Bloch. Modal Logics based on Mathematical Morphology for Spatial Reasoning. Journal of Applied Non Classical Logics, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    I. Bloch and J. Lang. Towards Mathematical Morpho-Logics. In 8th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge based Systems IPMU 2000, volume III, pages 1405–1412, Madrid, Spain, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    I. Bloch and H. Maître. Fuzzy Mathematical Morphologies: A Comparative Study. Pattern Recognition, 28(9):1341–1387, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    I. Bloch and A. Saffotti. On the Representation of Fuzzy Spatial Relations in Robot Maps. In IPMU 2002, volume III, pages 1587–1594, Annecy, France, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. Chellas. Modal Logic, an Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. de Baets. FuzzyMorphology: a Logical Approach. In B. Ayyub and M. Gupta, editors, Uncertainty in Engineering and Sciences: Fuzzy Logic, Statistics and Neural Network Approach, pages 53–67. Kluwer Academic, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Dubois, H. Prade, and C. Testemale. Weighted Fuzzy Pattern Matching. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 28:313–331, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Dutta. Approximate Spatial Reasoning: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Constraints. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 5:307–331, 1991.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Géraud, I. Bloch, and H. Maître. Atlas-guided Recognition of Cerebral Structures in MRI using Fusion of Fuzzy Structural Information. In CIMAF’99 Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, pages 99–106, La Havana, Cuba, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. M. Keller and X. Wang. Comparison of Spatial Relation Definitions in Computer Vision. In ISUMA-NAFIPS’95, pages 679–684, College Park, MD, September 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    L.T. Koczy. On the Description of Relative Position of Fuzzy Patterns. Pattern Recognition Letters, 8:21–28, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    B. J. Kuipers and T. S. Levitt. Navigation and Mapping in Large-Scale Space. AI Magazine, 9(2):25–43, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Lafage and J. Lang. Logical Representation of Preferences for Group Decision Making. In A.G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR 2000, pages 457–468, Breckenridge, CO, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    P. Matsakis and L. Wendling. A New Way to Represent the Relative Position between Areal Objects. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(7):634–642, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    K. Miyajima and A. Ralescu. Spatial Organization in 2D Segmented Images: Representation and Recognition of Primitive Spatial Relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 65:225–236, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Nachtegael and E. E. Kerre. Classical and Fuzzy Approaches towards Mathematical Morphology. In E.E. Kerre and M. Nachtegael, editors, Fuzzy Techniques in Image Processing, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, chapter 1, pages 3–57. Physica-Verlag, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    D. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. A Spatial Logic based on Regions and Connection. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR’92, pages 165–176, San Mateo, CA, 1992. Kaufmann. 161Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Serra. Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology. Academic Press, London, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. Sinha and E. Dougherty. Fuzzy Mathematical Morphology. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 3(3):286–302, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    R. Zwick, E. Carlstein, and D.V. Budescu. Measures of Similarity Among Fuzzy Concepts: A Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 1:221–242, 1987.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Bloch
    • 1
  1. 1.Département TSI - CNRS URA 820Ecole Nationale Supérieure des TélécommunicationsParisFrance

Personalised recommendations