Advertisement

Evaluating the Cognitive Adequacy of the DLine-Region Calculus

  • Alexander Klippel
  • Jinlong Yang
  • Rui Li
  • Jan Oliver Wallgrün
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Geographic Information Science book series (AGIS)

Abstract

Qualitative spatio-temporal calculi play a crucial role in modeling, representing, and reasoning about geospatial dynamics such as the movement of agents or geographic entities. They are ubiquitous in ontological modeling, information retrieval, they play a central part at the human-machine interface, and are critical to process data collected from geosensor networks. What is common to all these application areas is the search for a mechanism to transform data into knowledge borrowing heavily from strategies of (human) cognitive information processing. Astonishingly, there is paucity in actual behavioral evaluations on whether the suggested calculi are indeed cognitively adequate. While the assumption seems to be made that qualitative equals cognitive, a more differentiated view is needed. This paper is filling the void by the first (to the best of our knowledge) behavioral assessment of the DLine-Region calculus using actual dynamic stimuli. These assessments are crucial as the few experiments that exist have clearly demonstrated that topological relations form conceptual groups (clusters), a fact that seems to be highly likely for the 26 DLine-Region relations as well. Our results show which topological relations form (cognitive) conceptual clusters.

Keywords

Movement Pattern Topological Relation Dynamic Stimulus Topological Predicate Qualitative Calculus 
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. Adrienko G, Adrienko N, Dykes J, Fabrikant SI, Wachowicz M (2008) Geovisualization of dynamics, movement and change: key issues and developing approaches in visualization research. Inf Vis 7(3/4):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen JF (1983) Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun ACM 26(11):832–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clementini E, Di Felice P, van Oosterom P (1993) A small set of formal topological relationships suitable for end-user interaction. In: Abel D, Ooi BC (eds) Advances in spatial databases. Third international symposium, SSD ’93 Singapore, 23–25 June 1993: proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–295Google Scholar
  4. Cohn AG (2008) Conceptual neighborhood. In: Shekhar S, Xiong H (eds) Encyclopedia of GIS. Springer, Boston, p 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohn AG, Renz J (2008) Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning. In: van Harmelen F, Lifschitz V, Porter B (eds) Foundations of artificial intelligence. Handbook of knowledge representation, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 551–596Google Scholar
  6. Egenhofer MJ, Al-Taha KK (1992) Reasoning about gradual changes of topological relationships. In: Frank AU, Campari I, Formentini U (eds) Theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space. Springer, Berlin, pp 196–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egenhofer MJ, Franzosa RD (1991) Point-set topological spatial relations. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 5(2):161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (1995) Naive geography. In: Frank AU, Kuhn W (eds) Proceedings of spatial information theory. A theoretical basis for GIS. International conference, COSIT 95, Semmering, Austria, 21–23 Sept 1995. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  9. Freksa C (1992) Temporal reasoning based on semi-intervals. Artif Intell 54(1):199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galton A (2000) Qualitative spatial change. Spatial information systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Klippel A (2012) Spatial information theory meets spatial thinking—is topology the Rosetta Stone of spatio-temporal cognition? Ann Assoc Am Geogr (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Klippel A (2011) Movement choremes: bridging cognitive understanding and formal characterization of movement patterns. Top Cogn Sci 3(4):722–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klippel A, Li R, Yang J, Hardisty F, Xu S (2012) The Egenhofer-Cohn hypothesis: or, topological relativity? In: Raubal M, Frank AU, Mark DM (eds) Cognitive and linguistic aspects of geographic space—new perspectives on geographic information research, Springer, Berlin (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Knauff M, Rauh R, Renz J (1997) A cognitive assessment of topological spatial relations: results from an empirical investigation. In: Hirtle SC, Frank AU (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS. Springer, Berlin, p 206Google Scholar
  15. Kos AJ, Psenicka C (2000) Measuring cluster similarity across methods. Psychol Rep 86:858–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurata Y (2008) The 9+-intersection: a universal framework for modeling topological relations. In: Cova TJ, Miller HJ, Beard K, Frank AU, Goodchild MF (eds) Geographic information science. 5th international conference, GIScience 2008, Park City, UT, USA, 23–26 Sept 2008: proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 181–198Google Scholar
  17. Kurata Y, Egenhofer MJ (2007) The 9+-intersection for topological relations between a directed line segment and a region. In: Gottfried B (ed) TZI technical report, 1st workshop on behaviour monitoring and interpretation (BMI’07), in conjunction with 30th German conference on artificial intelligence, vol 42. Universität Bremen, pp 62–76Google Scholar
  18. Kurata Y, Egenhofer MJ (2009) Interpretation of behaviors from a viewpoint of topology. In: Gottfried B, Aghajan H (eds) Behaviour monitoring and interpretation. Ambient intelligence and smart environments. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 75–97Google Scholar
  19. Lu S, Harter D, Graesser AC (2009) An empirical and computational investigation of perceiving and remembering event temporal relations. Cogn Sci 33:345–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maguire MJ, Brumberg J, Ennis M, Shipley TF (2011) Similarities in object and event segmentation: a geometric approach to event path segmentation. Sp Cogn Comput 3:254–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mark DM, Egenhofer MJ (1994a) Calibrating the meanings of spatial predicates from natural language: line-region relations. In Waugh TC, Healey RG (eds) Advances in GIS research, 6th international symposium on spatial data handling, pp 538–553Google Scholar
  22. Mark DM, Egenhofer MJ (1994b) Modeling spatial relations between lines and regions: combining formal mathematical models and human subject testing. Cartogr Geogr Inf Syst 21(3):195–212Google Scholar
  23. Mark DM, Egenhofer MJ (1995) Topology of prototypical spatial relations between lines and regions in English and Spanish. In: Proceedings, auto carto 12, charlotte, North Carolina, March 1995, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  24. Mark DM, Turk AG, Stea D (2007) Progress on Yindjibarndi ethnophysiography. In: Winter S, Kuipers B, Duckham M, Kulik L (eds) Spatial information theory. 9th international conference, COSIT 2007, Melbourne, Australia, 19–23 Sept 2007: proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  25. Mennis J, Peuquet DJ, Qian L (2000) A conceptual framework for incorporating cognitive principles into geographical database representation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14(6):501–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muller P (2002) Topological spatio-temporal reasoning and representation. Comput Intell 18(3):420–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Randell DA, Cui Z, Cohn AG (1992) A spatial logic based on regions and connections. In: Nebel B, Rich C, Swartout WR (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 165–176Google Scholar
  28. Randell D, Cohn A (1989) Modelling topological and metrical properties in physical processes. In: Brachman R, Levesque H, Reiter R (eds) Proceedings of the1st international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 55–66Google Scholar
  29. Regier T, Zheng M (2007) Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cogn Sci 31(4):705–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross RJ, Hois J, Kelleher J (eds) (2010) Computational models of spatial language interpretation (CoSLI) workshop at spatial cognition 2010: CEUR workshop proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider M, Behr T (2006) Topological relationships between complex spatial objects. ACM Trans Database Syst 31(1):31–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shariff AR, Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (1998) Natural-language spatial relations between linear and areal objects: the topology and metric of English-language terms. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12(3):215–246Google Scholar
  33. Shipley TF, Maguire MJ (2008) Geometric information for event segmentation. In: Shipley TF, Zacks JM (eds) Understanding events: how humans see, represent, and act on events. Oxford University Press, New York, p 435Google Scholar
  34. Shipley TF, Zacks MJ (eds) (2008) Understanding events: how humans see, represent, and act on events. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Sridhar M, Cohn A, Hogg D (2011) From video to RCC8: exploiting a distance based semantics to stabilise the interpretation of mereotopological relations: spatial information theory. In: Egenhofer M, Giudice N, Moratz R, Worboys M (eds) Lecture notes in computer science. Spatial information theory. 10th international conference, COSIT 2011, Belfast, ME, USA, 12–16 Sept 2011: proceeding. Springer, pp 110–125Google Scholar
  36. Stewart Hornsby K, Cole S (2007) Modeling moving geospatial objects from an event-based perspective. Trans GIS 11(4):555–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van de Weghe N, Billen R, Kuijpers B, Bogaert P (eds) (2008) Moving objects: from natural to formal language: workshop held in conjunction with GIScience 2008, UtahGoogle Scholar
  38. Yuan M, Hornsby KS (2008) Computation and visualization for the understanding dynamics in geographic domains: a research agenda. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Klippel
    • 1
  • Jinlong Yang
    • 1
  • Rui Li
    • 1
  • Jan Oliver Wallgrün
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography, GeoVISTA Center Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations