Advertisement

On Problems and Benefits of 3D Topology on Under-Specified Geometries in Geomorphology

  • Marc-O. Löwner
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The science of geomorphology is working on natural 3D landforms. This includes the change of landforms as well as the processes causing these changes. The main concepts of geomorphology, i.e. the sediment budget and the sediment cascade approach can definitely be enhanced by introducing 3D geometrical and topological specifications of the Open Geospatial Consortium. The ISO 19107, Spatial Schema, implements OGC’s Abstract Specification. It enables the modelling of real world 3D phenomena to represent them as formal information models. Unfortunately, OGC’s concepts are not widely applied in the science of geomorphology. In this article we are going to show the explicit benefit of 3D topology for the science of geomorphology. Analysing topological relationships of landforms can be directly related to geomorphic insights. This includes firstly, the process-related accessibility of landforms and therefore material properties, and secondly, the chronological order of landform creation. Further, a simple approach is proposed to use the benefits of the abstract specification 3D topologic model, when only under-specified geometries are available. Often, no sufficient data is available on natural landforms to model valid 3D solids. Following clearly defined geometric conditions the introduced class _UG_Solid mediates between primitives of lower dimension and a GM_Solid . The latter is the realisation of a _UG_Solid that definitely holds the 3D geometry we need to associate with the 3D topological concepts.

Keywords

Topological Relationship Sediment Budget Abstract Class Spatial Schema Abstract Specification 
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.

References

  1. Ahnert F (1988) Modelling landform change. In: Anderson MG (ed) Modelling geomorphological systems. Wiley, Chichester, pp 375–400Google Scholar
  2. Ahnert F (1996) Einführung in die Geomorphologie. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunsden D (1996) Geomorphological events and landform change. Z Geomorph NF 40:273–288 (Suppl.-Bd.)Google Scholar
  4. Caine N (1974) The geomorphic processes of the alpine environment. In: Ives JD, Barry RG (eds) Arctic and alpine environments. Methuen, London, pp 721–748Google Scholar
  5. Chorley RJ, Kennedy BA (1971) Physical geography: a system approach. Prentice-Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Chorley RJ, Schumm SA, Sudgen DE (1984) Geomorphology. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Church M, Slaymaker O (1989) Disequilibrium of Holocene sediment yield in glaciated British Columbia. Nature 337(2):452–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke RU, Doornkamp JC (1990) Geomorphology in environmental management. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalrymple JB, Blong RJ, Conacher AJ (1968) A hypothetical nine unit landsurface model. Z Geomorph NF 12:60–76Google Scholar
  10. Dikau R (1989) The application of a digital relief model to landform analysis in geomorphology. In: Raper J (ed) Three dimensional applications in Geographic Information Systems. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 51–77Google Scholar
  11. Dikau R (1996) Geomorphologische Reliefklassifikation und -analyse. Heidelberger Geographische Arbeiten 104:15–23Google Scholar
  12. Egenhofer MJ, Herring JR (1990) A mathematical framework for the definition of topological relations. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on SDH, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 803–813Google Scholar
  13. Evans IS (1972) General geomorphometry, derivates of altitude, and descriptive statistics. In: Chorley RJ (ed) Spatial analysis in geomorphology. Methuen, London, pp 17–90Google Scholar
  14. Foley J, van Dam A, Feiner S, Hughes J (1995) Computer graphics: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  15. Gröger G, Kolbe TH, Nagel C, Häfele K-H (2012) (eds) OGC city geography markup language (CityGML) encoding standardGoogle Scholar
  16. Herring J (2001) The OpenGIS abstract specification, Topic 1: feature geometry (ISO 19107 Spatial Schema), Version 5. OGC Document 01–101Google Scholar
  17. Hugget RJ (2003) Fundamentals of geomorphology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan P, Slaymaker O (1991) Holocene sediment production in Lillooet river basin British Columbia: a sediment budget approach. Géog Phys Quatern 45(1):45–57Google Scholar
  19. Kada M, McKinley L (2009) 3D building reconstruction from Lidar based on a cell decomposition approach. Int Arch Photogrammetry, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XXXVIII((3/W4)):47–52Google Scholar
  20. Kottman C, Reed C (2009) The OpenGIS® abstract specification topic 5: features, OGC document 08–126. (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as)
  21. Kugler H (1974) Das Georelief und seine kartographische Modellierung. Dissertation B, Martin-Luther-Universität HalleGoogle Scholar
  22. Lake R, Burggraf DS, Trininic M, Rae L (2004) GML—geography mark-up language. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Löwner M-O (2010) New GML-based application schema for landforms, processes and their interaction. In: Otto J-C, Dikau R (eds) Landform—structure, evolution, process control. Lecture notes in earth sciences, vol 115, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  24. Löwner M-O, J-C Otto (2008) Towards an automatic identification of sediment cascades from geomorphological maps using graph theory. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on sediment dynamics in changing environments, Christchurch, Neuseeland, 1–5 Dezember 2008Google Scholar
  25. Open Geospatial Consortium (2012) Abstract specifications (URL: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as, last visited 23 Jan 2012)
  26. Otto J-C, Dikau R (2004) Geomorphologic System Analysis of a high mountain valley in the Swiss Alps. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 48(3):323–341Google Scholar
  27. Otto J-C, Schrott L, Jaboyedoff M, Dikau R (2009) Quantifying sediment storage in a high alpine valley (Turtmanntal, Switzerland). Earth Surf Proc Land 34:1726–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rasemann S (2004) Geomorphometrische Struktur eines mesoskaligen alpinen Geosystems, Bonner Geographische Abhandlungen 111Google Scholar
  29. Reid LM, Dunne T (1996) Rapid evaluation of sediment Budgets. Catena Verlag, ReiskirchenGoogle Scholar
  30. Schrott L, Hoffmann T (2008) Seismic refraction. In: Hauck C, Kneisel C (eds) Applied geophysics in periglacial environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schrott L, Sass O (2008) Application of field geophysics in geomorphology: advances and limitations exemplified by case studies. Geomorphology 93:55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schrott L, Hufschidt G, Hankammer M, Hoffmann T, Dikau R (2003) Spatial distribution of sediment storage types and quantification of valley fill in an alpine basin, Reintal, Bavarian Alps, Germany. Geomorphology 55:45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Summerfield MA (1997) Global Geomorphology: an Introduction to the study of landforms. Addison Wesley, EssexGoogle Scholar
  34. Young A (1978) Slopes. Longman limited, London Google Scholar
  35. Zheng W, Schenk T (2000) Building extraction and reconstruction from lidar data. Int Arch Photogrammetry Remote Sens XXX:958–964 (Amsterdam. Part B3)Google Scholar
  36. Zlatanova S (2000) On 3D topological relationships. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on database and expert system applications (DEXA 2000), Greenwich, London, pp 913–919, 6–8 SeptGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Geodesy and PhotogrammetryTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations