Multi-level Topological Relations Between Spatial Regions Based Upon Topological Invariants

Topological relations have played important roles in spatial query, analysis and reasoning. In a two-dimensional space (IR2), most existing topological models can distinguish the eight basic topological relations between two spatial regions. Due to the arbitrariness and complexity of topological relations between spatial regions, it is difficult for these models to describe the order property of transformations among the topological relations, which is important for detailed analysis of spatial relations. In order to overcome the insufficiency in existing models, a multi-level modeling approach is employed to describe all the necessary details of region–region relations based upon topological invariants. In this approach, a set of hierarchically topological invariants is defined based upon the boundary–boundary intersection set (BBIS) of two involved regions. These topological invariants are classified into three levels based upon spatial set concept proposed, which include content, dimension and separation number at the set level, the element type at the element level, and the sequence at the integrated level. Corresponding to these hierarchical invariants, multi-level formal models of topological relations between spatial regions are built. A practical example is provided to illustrate the use of the approach presented in this paper.

[1]  Donna Peuquet,et al.  An algorithm to determine the directional relationship between arbitrarily-shaped polygons in the plane , 1987, Pattern Recognit..

[2]  Ronald F. Abler,et al.  The National Science Foundation National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis , 1987, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[3]  David M. Mark,et al.  Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space: New Perspectives on Geographic Information Research , 1991 .

[4]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Reasoning about Binary Topological Relations , 1991, SSD.

[5]  Daniel Hernández,et al.  Relative representation of spatial knowledge: the 2-D case , 1990, Forschungsberichte, TU Munich.

[6]  John R. Herring,et al.  The Mathematical Modeling of Spatial and Non-Spatial Information in Geographic Information Systems , 1991 .

[7]  MAX J. EGENHOFER,et al.  Point Set Topological Relations , 1991, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[8]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Reasoning about Gradual Changes of Topological Relationships , 1992, Spatio-Temporal Reasoning.

[9]  Andrew U. Frank,et al.  Qualitative spatial reasoning about distances and directions in geographic space , 1992, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[10]  Anthony G. Cohn,et al.  Qualitative and Topological Relationships in Spatial Databases , 1993, SSD.

[11]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Modelling Spatial Relations and Operations with Partially Ordered Sets , 1993, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[12]  Eliseo Clementini,et al.  A Small Set of Formal Topological Relationships Suitable for End-User Interaction , 1993, SSD.

[13]  Clement T. Yu,et al.  Reasoning About Spatial Relationships in Picture Retrieval Systems , 1994, VLDB.

[14]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Topological Relations Between Regions with Holes , 1994, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Jayant Sharma,et al.  Modeling Topological Spatial Relations: Strategies for Query Processing , 1998 .

[16]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Qualitative Spatial Reasoning Using Algebraic Topology , 1995, COSIT.

[17]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  On the Equivalence of Topological Relations , 1995, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Eliseo Clementini,et al.  Composite Regions in Topological Queries , 1995, Inf. Syst..

[19]  Martin Breunig Integration of Spatial Information for Geo-Information Systems , 1996 .

[20]  M. Egenhofer Categorizing Binary Topological Relations Between Regions, Lines, and Points in Geographic Databases , 1998 .

[21]  Eliseo Clementini,et al.  Topological Invariants for Lines , 1998, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[22]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the Complexity of Qualitative Spatial Reasoning: A Maximal Tractable Fragment of the Region Connection Calculus , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[23]  M. Egenhofer Evaluating Inconsistencies Among Multiple Representations , 2000 .

[24]  Jun Chen,et al.  A Voronoi-based 9-intersection model for spatial relations , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[25]  Zhilin Li,et al.  A Voronoi-based spatial algebra for spatial relations* , 2002 .