Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Geographical information systems (GIS) typically contain many gigabytes of quantitative spatial data; a major problem is how to best query and abstract this data for presentation to the human user. One possibility is through the use of maps and other graphical interfaces. The other, explored here, is through sets of qualitative spatial relations, such as the topological ones that have found their way into the ISO 19107 Spatial Schema standard. Such relations may be used to specify a wide variety of spatial information, including topological relationships, orientation, size, distance, location, and certain aspects of shape.

Representing space has a rich history in the physical sciences and serves to locate objects in a quantitative framework. At the other extreme, spatial expressions in natural languages tend to operate on a loose partitioning of the domain. Representation for this less precise description of space proliferated more or less on an ad hoc basis until the emergence of qualitative spatial reasoning (QSR); thereafter, the partitioning was done more systematically. This entry briefly outlines the major issues and aspects of qualitative spatial relations, concentrating on aspects most relevant to GIS.

There are many different aspects to space and therefore to its representation. Not only do we have to decide on what kind of spatial entity we will admit (i.e., commit to a particular ontology of space), but we also can consider developing different kinds of ways of describing the relationship between these kinds of spatial entities; for example, we may consider just their topology, their sizes or the distance between them, their relative orientation, or their shape. The following sections give an overview the principal techniques that have emerged to represent these different aspects of qualitative spatial knowledge.

Ontology

Traditionally, in mathematical theories of space, points are considered as the primary primitive spatial entities (or perhaps points and lines), and extended spatial entities, such as regions, are defined, if necessary, as sets of points. A minority tradition, mereology or calculus of individuals, regards this as a philosophical error. Within the QSR community, there is a strong tendency to take regions of space as the primitive spatial entity, and, indeed, this coincides with the idea that the spatial extension of most geographic entities is a region. Lower-dimensional entities (lines and points) may be needed, in which case they can be either defined or introduced as additional spatial primitive entities.

A further ontological question is this: What primitive “computations” should be allowed? In a logical theory, this amounts to deciding what primitive nonlogical symbols one will admit without definition, being constrained only by some set of axioms. One could argue that this set of primitives should be small, not only for mathematical elegance and to make it easier to assess the consistency of the theory but also because this will simplify the interface of the symbolic system to a perceptual component or data base because fewer primitives have to be implemented. The converse argument might be that the resulting symbolic inferences may be more complicated or that it is more natural to have a large and rich set of concepts that are given meaning by many axioms, which connect them in many different ways.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading