Topological Adjustment of Polygonal Data

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Geographic Information Science book series (AGIS)

Abstract

Qualitative spatial relations, in particular (mereo)topological relations such as those defined in the 9-Intersection model or RCC-8 and RCC-5, play an important role as constraints in many applications of spatial data processing such as conflation and data cleaning, map generalization, and solving layout problems in general. A fundamental problem in such applications is to adjust geometric data such that certain topological constraints are satisfied, while minimizing the changes that need to be made to the geometric input data. We develop an approach to solve this problem for topological relations between polygonal objects and with displacement of the objects being the only allowed adjustment operation. Our approach is based on a formalization of these relations as sets of (in)equations which can then be translated into a MNLP program and be solved using a dedicated MNLP solver. Our suggested adjustment algorithm uses Minkowski sums of the involved polygons to achieve a linear number of (in)equations per relation.

Keywords

Topological relations Integrity constraints Adjustment theory Qualitative spatial reasoning Displacement Data cleaning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Reinhard Moratz and the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and suggestions.

References

  1. Bhatt M, Lee JH, Schultz C (2011) CLP(QS): a declarative spatial reasoning framework. In: Egenhofer MJ, Giudice NA, Moratz R, Worboys MF (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on spatial information theory (COSIT). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6899. Springer, pp 210–230Google Scholar
  2. Clementini E, Sharma J, Egenhofer MJ (1994) Modeling topological spatial relations: strategies for query processing. Comput Graph 18(92):815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohn AG, Hazarika SM (2001) Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning: an overview. Fundamenta Informaticae 46(1–2):1–29Google Scholar
  4. Egenhofer MJ (1991) Reasoning about binary topological relations. In: Gunther O, Schek HJ (eds) Advances in spatial databases, second symposium on large spatial databases, vol 525. Springer, New York, pp 143–160Google Scholar
  5. Haarslev V, Möller R (1997) Spatioterminological reasoning: subsumption based on geometrical inferences. In: Brachman RJ, Donini FM, Franconi E, Horrocks I, Levy AY, Rousset MC (eds) Description logics, vol 410, URA-CNRS (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Harrie L (1999) The constraint method for solving spatial conflicts in cartographic generalization. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 26(1):55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Klippel A, Worboys M, Duckham M (2008) Identifying factors of geographic event conceptualisation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22(2):183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lamy S, Ruas A, Demazeau Y, Jackson M, Mackaness W, Weibel R (1999) The application of agents in automated map generalisation. In: 19th international cartographic conference, pp 160–169Google Scholar
  9. Latombe JC (1991) Robot motion planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Marriott K, Moulder P, Stuckey P, Borning A (2001) Solving disjunctive constraints for interactive graphical applications. In: Walsh T (ed) Principles and practice of constraint programming, vol 2239. Springer, Berlin, pp 361–376Google Scholar
  11. Randell DA, Cui Z, Cohn A (1992) A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 165–176Google Scholar
  12. Renz J, Nebel B (2007) Qualitative spatial reasoning using constraint calculi. In: Aiello M, Pratt-Hartmann IE, van Benthem JF (eds) Handbook of spatial logics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 161–215Google Scholar
  13. Sester M (2000) Generalization based on least squares adjustment. In: International archives of photogrammetry and remote sensing, vol 33Google Scholar
  14. Steiniger S, Weibel R (2007) Relations among map objects in cartographic generalization. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 34(3):175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ware JM, Jones CB (1998) Conflict reduction in map generalization using iterative improvement. GeoInformatica 2(4):383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography, GeoVISTA CenterThe Pennsylvania State UniversityPennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations