A unified formalism for landmark based representation of maps and navigation plans

  • Svetha Venkatesh
  • Dorota Kieronska
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 833)


We present a unified formalism for representing maps and using them for constructing plans of navigation for an autonomous agent. The foundation of this work lies in addressing key questions that an agent is confronted with when navigating. That is, besides the main task of how to reach the intended destination from the current position, the agent faces other questions like: where am I? what landmarks can I see? where is my destination relative to me and the landmarks I am seeing?

Fundamental to this representation is the use of visual landmarks, which are used as pivotal points in the landscape being described. Further, in the representation of spatial information and navigation there are three different viewpoints: first, the localized representation from the viewpoint of a sighted, mobile agent; second, the static representation seen by the map-maker; and third, the view of an external agent giving directions on the basis of his own experience/knowledge. The major contribution of this map model and the associated navigation method lies in the framework which unifies these three different points of view. This unification enables the agent to make no distinction in terms of following implicit instructions contained in a map and the directions given by external agents.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Georgeff, M.P.: Actions, Processes and Causality, in Reasoning about actions and plans. Proceedings of the 1986 workshop at Timberlin, Oregon, (M.P. Georgeff and A.L. Lansky, eds), Morgan Kaufmann, (1987) pp. 99–122.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kender, J.R., Leff, A.: Why Direction Giving is Hard: The Complexity of using Landmarks in One Dimensional Navigation. AAAI-90 Workshop on Qualitative Vision, (1990) pp. 213–219.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuipers, B., Byun. Y-T.: A Robot Exploration and Mapping Strategy Based on a Semantic Hierarchy of Spatial Representation. AAAI'90 Workshop on Qualitative Vision, (1990) pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levitt, T.S. and Lawton D.T., 1990, Qualitative Navigation for Mobile Robots, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 44, pp. 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levitt, T.S.: Qualitative Navigation. Proceedings of the DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, Los Angeles, Morgan Kaufmann (1987).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stecter, L.A., Vitello, D. and Wonsiewicz, S.W.: How to tell people where to go. Comparing Navigation Aids, Journal of Man Machine Studies, vol. 22, (1985).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsuji, S., Zhang, J.Y.: The Qualitative Representation of Scenes along a Route, AAAI'90 Workshop on Qualitative Vision, (1990) pp. 67–71.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venkatesh, S., Kieronska, D.: Landmark Based Representation for Maps and Navigation Plans. Tech. Report, Curtin University of Technology, (1991).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zadeh,L.A., PRUF-a meaning representation language for natural languages, in Fuzzy Reasoning and its applications, Eds. Mamdani, E.H. and Gaines, B.R., pp. 1–66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svetha Venkatesh
    • 1
  • Dorota Kieronska
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceCurtin University of TechnologyPerth

Personalised recommendations