Abstract
Topographic data are designed and widely used for base maps of diverse applications, yet the power of these information sources largely relies on the interpretive skills of map readers and relational database expert users once the data are in map or geographic information system (GIS) form. Advances in geospatial semantic technology offer data model alternatives for explicating concepts and articulating complex data queries and statements. To understand and enrich the vocabulary of topographic feature properties for semantic technology, English language spatial relation predicates were analyzed in three standard topographic feature glossaries. The analytical approach drew from disciplinary concepts in geography, linguistics, and information science. Five major classes of spatial relation predicates were identified from the analysis; representations for most of these are not widely available. The classes are: part-whole (which are commonly modeled throughout semantic and linked-data networks), geometric, processes, human intention, and spatial prepositions. These are commonly found in the ‘real world’ and support the environmental science basis for digital topographical mapping. The spatial relation concepts are based on sets of relation terms presented in this chapter, though these lists are not prescriptive or exhaustive. The results of this study make explicit the concepts forming a broad set of spatial relation expressions, which in turn form the basis for expanding the range of possible queries for topographical data analysis and mapping.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alexandria Digital Library Project (ADL) (2002) Alexandria digital library feature type Thesaurus. University of California, Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara, CA. http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazetteer/FeatureTypes/ver070302/index.htm. Accessed 22 Nov 2011
Battle R, Kolas D (2011) Linking geospatial data with GeoSPARQL. Semant Web J Interoperability, Usability, Appl. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj176_0.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2011
Berners-Lee J, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 184(5):34–43
Brodaric B (2008) A foundational framework for structuring geographical categories. First international workshop on informational semantics and its implications for geographical analysis, geoscience 2008. http://cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/~isga08/Brodaric.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2010
Burek P (2006) Ontology of functions: a domain-independent framework for modeling functions. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig. http://www.onto-med.de/publications/2007/burek-p-2007-a.pdf
Câmara G, Vieira-Monteiro AM, Paiva J, deSouza RCM (2000) Action-driven ontologies of the geographical space. In: Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (eds) GIScience 2000. Association of American Geographers, Savannah
Caro H, Varanka D (2011) Analysis of spatial relation predicates in U.S. Geological Survey feature definitions. U.S. geological survey open-file report 2011-1235. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1235/. Accessed 22 Nov 2011
Casati R, Varzi A (1999) Parts and places: the structures of spatial representation. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Clarke KC (2001) Getting started with geographic information systems, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Couclelis H (2010) Ontologies of geographic information. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24:1785–1809
Coventry KR, Garrod SC (2004) Saying, seeing, and acting: the psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Psychology Press, Hove
Curry MR (2002) Discursive displacement and the seminal ambiguity of space and place. In: Lievrouw L, Livingstone S (eds) The handbook of new media: social shaping and consequences of ICTs. Sage Publications, London
Dolbear C, Hart G, Kovacs K, Goodwin J, Zhou S (2007) The rabbit language: description, syntax and conversion to OWL: ordnance survey research. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/partnerships/research/publications/docs/2007/Rabbit_Language_v1.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2010
Egenhofer MJ (2002) Toward the semantic geospatial web. In: GIS’02: Proceedings of the 10th ACM international symposium on advances in geographic information systems. ACM, New York
Egenhofer MJ, Herring JR (1991) Categorizing binary topological relations between regions, lines, and points in geographic databases. University of Maine. http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~max/9intReport.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2011
Fonseca F, Egenhofer M, Davis C, Câmara G (2002) Semantic granularity in ontology-driven geographic information systems. Ann Math Artif Intell 36(1–2):121–151
Foote K, Huebner D (1996) Representing relationships: the geographer’s craft project. University of Texas at Austin. http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/datacon/datacon_f.html. Accessed 23 Nov 2011
GeoNames (2010) GeoNames. http://www.geonames.org/. Accessed 3 Feb 2010
Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bansford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Guptill SC, Boyko KJ, Domaratz MA, Fegeas RG, Rossmeissl HJ, Usery EL (1990) An enhanced digital line graph design. U.S. geological survey circular 1048. Reston, Virginia
Hart G, Johnson M, Dolbear C (2007) Rabbit: Developing a control natural language for authoring ontologies. Ordnance survey. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/partnerships/research/publications/docs/2008/5_Rabbit_sem.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2010
Harvey PDA (1980) The history of topographical maps: symbols, pictures, and surveys. Thames and Hudson, London
Herskovits A (1986) Language and spatial cognition. University Press, Cambridge
ISO (2001a) ISO/TC 211 Geographic information/geomatics, final text of CD19109, geographic information—rules for application schema. Norwegian Technology Centre, Oslo
ISO (2001b) ISO/TC 211 geographic information/geomatics, final text of CD19107, geographic information—spatial schema. Norwegian Technology Centre, Oslo
ISO (2004) ISO/TC 211 Geographic information/geomatics, Text for IS 19125–1 geographic information—simple feature access—Part1. Norwegian Technology Centre, Oslo
Jakobson R, Halle M (1971) Fundamentals of language. Mouton Publishers, The Hague
Kuhn W (2001) Ontologies in support of activities in geographical space. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(7):613–631
Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Leatherbarrow D (2004) Topographical stories: studies in landscape and architecture. University of Pennsylania Press, Philadelphia
Levinson SC (2003) Space in language and cognition: explorations in cognitive diversity. University Press, Cambridge
Mark DM, Egenhofer MJ, Sharif AR (1995) Toward a standard for spatial relations in SDTS and geographic information systems. In: Proceedings, GIS/LIS’95. ACSM/ASPRS, Washington DC
Merriam-Webster (2010) Merriam-Webster online. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enclose. Accessed 24 Mar 2010
Mizen H, Dolbear C, Hart G (2005) Ontology ontogeny: understanding how an ontology is created and developed. In: Rodriguez MA, Cruz IF, Egenhofer MJ, Levashkin S (eds) First international conference on GeoSpatial semantics GeoS 2005. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3799. Springer, Berlin
Murray C (2011) Oracle Database semantic technologies developer’s guide, 11 g release 2 (11.2). Oracle.http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e25609/sdo_rdf_concepts.htm#CIHHAEIH. Accessed 25 Oct 2011
Mustière S, van Smaalen J (2007) Database requirements for generalisation and multiple representations. In: Mackaness WA, Ruas A, Sarjakoski LT (eds) Generalisation of geographic information: cartographic modelling and applications. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) (2009) National system for geospatial-intelligence (NSG) Feature data dictionary (NFDD), Version 2.0. http://www.gwg.nga.mil/documents/asfe/NFDD_v2.0.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2011
National Research Council (2007) A research agenda for geographic information science at the United States Geological Survey. The National Academies Press, Washington DC
Navigli R, Velardi P (2008) From glossaries to ontologies: extracting semantic structure from textual definitions. In: Buitelaar P, Cimiano P (eds) Ontology learning and population: bridging the gap between text and knowledge. IOS Press, Amsterdam
OGC (2010) Open geospatial consortium, Inc. http://www.opengeospatial.org/. Accessed Mar 25 2010
OpenCyc (2010) OpenCyc.org. http://sw.opencyc.org. Accessed 8 Feb 2010
Pearce MW (2008) Framing the days: place and narrative in cartography. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 35:17–32
Princeton University (2010) About WordNet. WordNet. Princeton University. http://wordnet.princeton.edu. Accessed 22 Nov 2011
Rector A, Welty C (2005) Simple part-whole relations in OWL ontologies. W3C editor’s draft 24 Mar 2005. W3C. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/simple-part-whole-relations-v1.3.html. Accessed 22 Nov 2011
Sen S (2008) Use of affordances in geospatial ontologies. Towards affordance-based robot control. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4760. Springer, Berlin
Stocker M, Sirin E (2009) PelletSpatial: A hybrid RCC-8 and RDF/OWL reasoning and query engine. The OWL: experiences and direction (OWLED) sixth international workshop. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-529/owled2009_submission_20.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2011
US Geological Survey (2009) National hydrography dataset feature catalog. http://nhd.usgs.gov/NHDFeatureCatalog.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2011
US Geological Survey (2010) National geospatial program standards. http://nationalmap.gov/gio/standards/. Accessed 23 Mar 2010
Talmy L (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cogn Sci 12:49–100
Theobald DM (2001) Topology revisited: representing spatial relations. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(8):689–705
US Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) (2010) Geographic names information system. http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/index.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
Varanka DE, Mattli D (2011) Feature type vocabulary for the national map ontology. http://cegis.usgs.gov/ontology.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2011
Varanka DE, Carter JJ, Usery EL, Shoberg T (2011) Topographic mapping data semantics through data conversion and enhancement. In: Sheth A, Ashish N (eds) Geospatial semantics and the semantic web: foundations, algorithms, and applications. Springer, Berlin
W3C (2010a) Semantic web. World wide web consortium. http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/. Accessed 22 Nov 2011
W3C (2010b) Resource description framework (RDF). http://www.w3.org/RDF/. Accessed 23 Mar 2010
W3C (2010c) SPARQL query language for RDF. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SPARQL. Accessed 23 Mar 2010
Watts MT (1975) Reading the landscape of America. Macmillan, New York
Wierzbicka A (1996) Semantics: primes and universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Varanka, D.E., Caro, H.K. (2013). Spatial Relation Predicates in Topographic Feature Semantics. In: Raubal, M., Mark, D., Frank, A. (eds) Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34359-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34359-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34358-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34359-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)