DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1: Some Basics in Topology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 1: Some Basics in Topology Chapter 1: Some Basics in Topology Today we will introduce some basic concepts in topology. In this lecture, we will still stay in the continuous domain. After that, we will change gears to discrete setting, handling discrete objects (especially simplicial complexes) that we are more familiar with, and also that are more computationally friendly. References for the materials covered in this lecture include [2] (for Section 1 and 2) and [1] (for Section 3 and 4). 1 Topological Spaces Definition 1.1 (Topological space) A topological space is a set X endowed with a topological structure (a topology) T such that the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Both the empty set and X are elements of T . 2. Any union of arbitrarily many elements of T is an element of T . 3. Any intersection of finitely many elements of T is an element of T . In other words, it is a set equipped with set of subsets. In particular, each set A in T is said to be open. Its complement X n A is said to be closed. That is, a set A is closed if its complement is open. A set could be neither open nor closed (think of [0; 1) on the real line IR equipped with the standard topology that we will describe shortly). A set could also be both open and closed (think of the set X). The closure of a set A is the minimal closed set from X containing A. Given the same space (set) X, one can defined different set system T , which will then in turn lead to different topology. However, very often, in spaces (say Euclidean space, or more general metric space, or the simplicial complex we will use heavily later) we encounter, we use the standard topology equipped with the space. Hence the reference to the set system T is often omitted. This is a rather general and abstract definition. Now this looks a bit too alien and very abstract. Let us look some examples. Example 1: Simple discrete topology on n elemens. Let X be a set of n elements X = X 1 fx1; : : : ; xng, and let T = 2 . < X; T > forms a topology. This is a discrete topology . It is a simple topology. We can also consider the trivial topology on X, which is simply T = f;; Xg. Example 2: Metric topological space. Given a metric space (X; dX ), there is a natural way to put a topology on it. Let us now try to rephrase everything in the metric space. Definition 1.2 (Metric space) A metric space (X; dX ) is a set X equipped with a function d : X × X ! IR such that (1) dX (x; y) ≥ 0 for all x; y 2 X; (2) dX (x:y) = 0 if and only if x = y; 1A topology < X; T > is discrete if T = 2X. 1 (3) dX (x; y) = d(y; x) for all x; y 2 X; (4) dX (x; y) + d(y; z) ≥ d(x; z) for all x; y; z 2 X. The function dX is often referred to as the distance metric on X. One of the most familiar metric d d space is the Euclidean space (X = IR ; dX ) with dX being the standard Euclidean distance in IR ; d i.e, dX (x; y) = kx − yk2. We will first define the metric topology on Euclidean space (IR ; d). For any x 2 IRd and " > 0, let B(x; ") := fy 2 IRd j d(x; y) < "g be the open Euclidean ball around x, and let B = fB(x; ") j x 2 IRd; " > 0g. Then set T to be the collection of (potentially infinite) union of any subset of open balls from B. It can be verified that the T as constructed this way indeed forms a topology on IRd. We call (IRd; T ) the standard topology on the Euclidean space IRd. Later in the class, if we refer to a topological space without describing its topology T explicitly, the we usually refer to standard topology (or a topology induced from certain standard topology) on the space. Let us now consider this topology on the real line. The topology T in this case consists of all 1 1 open intervals on the line. Note that for the real line, the intersection of the intervals (− k ; + k ), for all integers k ≥ 1, is the point 0. This is not an open set. This illustrates the need for the restriction to finite intersections. In general, A ⊂ IRd is open if for any point x inside, we can move it in arbitrary direction while still staying inside A. This definition of open balls and open sets can be extended to any metric space (X; d) by replacing the distance kx−yk with the metric distance d(x; y), which will give us a natural standard topology for any metric space. The natural topology defined on a metric space perhaps is perhaps the most important and most common topological space. We remark that in the previous example of generating the metric topology for a metric space (X; d), the collection of all open balls (with positive radius) B = fB(x; ") j x 2 IRd; " > 0g in fact forms a basis for the resulting topology (X; T ). Definition 1.3 (Basis of topology) Given a set X, a basis for a topology on X is a collection C of subsets of X (called basis elements) such that • for each x 2 X, there is at least one basis element C 2 C containing x; and • if x 2 C1 \ C2 for two basis elements C1;C2 2 C, then there exists a basis element C3 containing x such that C3 ⊂ C1 \ C2. The topology TC generated by C is the collection of unions of elements of C. It can be shown that given a basis, TC indeed is a valid topology on X. In our previous example, one can show that B satisfies the conditions of being a basis for IRd, and thus is a basis generating the topology T on IRd. Subspace topology. Finally, suppose that we have a topological space < X; T >. Given a subset Y ⊆ X, it has a natural topology on it which is inherited from T , denoted by TY defined as follows: open sets in TY is the intersection between open sets in T and Y. This is called the subspace topology on Y induced from < X; T >. For example, when we talk about topology for a surface S (or any compact set) embedded in IR3, we in fact mean the subspace topology on S induced from IR3. From now on, I will often omit the explicit reference of T and simply talk about a topological space X when the choice of T is clear. (In fact, we will mostly talk about the topology induced from a Euclidean space in this class.) 2 Remark. The topology (as well as the induced topology) in Euclidean space is the most common topological space one will encounter. The definition of topological space as sets of subsets may seem un-natural at first. In particular, the definitions of open and closed sets may be non-intuitive. Recall that we have said earlier that topology is about connectivity and about how the input space is put together from its subsets. Intuitively, this is captured by the open set and their union and intersections. Indeed, we will also use the term neighborhood of x 2 X to refer to an open set containing x. Neighborhoods intersect and indicate intuitively how they are patch together to form the topological space X. Closure, interior, boundaries etc. Given a set A ⊂ X, there are different way to define its closure and interior, e.g, using the concept of limit point. We will define it purely based on the general concepts we already know, i.e, open and closed sets of a topological space. Definition 1.4 Given a subset A of a topological space X (which could be neither open or closed), the closure of A, denoted by A, is defined as the intersection of all closed sets containing A. The interior of A, denoted by intA, is the union of all open sets contained in A. The boundary of A ⊆ X is defined as bdA = A \ X − A. It is easy to see that intA is open itself, and the closure A is a closed set itself. In general, intA \ bdA = ;, and A = intA [ bdA. If A is open itself, then bdA = A − A. Example: in IR2, an open or closed disk has the same closure, bundary, and interior. Now suppose we want to compare two topological spaces. We need a map between them, and we need a language to say that the two spaces are connected in the same way using this map. The language for this purpose is continuous function, which is one of the most important concepts in not just topology, but mathematics. We introduce it next. 2 Maps, homeomorphism, and homotopy There are different definitions of a continuous function. We give two equivalent ones below defined in the very general setting. Definition 2.1 (Continuous function) A neighborhood of a point x 2 X is simply an open set of X containing x. A function f : X ! Y is continuous at x 2 X if for any neighborhood V of f(x), there is a neighborhood U of x such that f(U) ⊆ V . See Figure 1 for an illustration. Function f is continuous if it is continuous at all points in X. Equivalently, a function f : X ! Y is continuous if for any open set V in Y, its preimage f −1(V ) is also open.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Topology of Subsets of Rn
    Lecture 1 The topology of subsets of Rn The basic material of this lecture should be familiar to you from Advanced Calculus courses, but we shall revise it in detail to ensure that you are comfortable with its main notions (the notions of open set and continuous map) and know how to work with them. 1.1. Continuous maps “Topology is the mathematics of continuity” Let R be the set of real numbers. A function f : R −→ R is called continuous at the point x0 ∈ R if for any ε> 0 there exists a δ> 0 such that the inequality |f(x0) − f(x)| < ε holds for all x ∈ R whenever |x0 − x| <δ. The function f is called contin- uous if it is continuous at all points x ∈ R. This is basic one-variable calculus. n Let R be n-dimensional space. By Or(p) denote the open ball of radius r> 0 and center p ∈ Rn, i.e., the set n Or(p) := {q ∈ R : d(p, q) < r}, where d is the distance in Rn. A function f : Rn −→ R is called contin- n uous at the point p0 ∈ R if for any ε> 0 there exists a δ> 0 such that f(p) ∈ Oε(f(p0)) for all p ∈ Oδ(p0). The function f is called continuous if it is continuous at all points p ∈ Rn. This is (more advanced) calculus in several variables. A set G ⊂ Rn is called open in Rn if for any point g ∈ G there exists a n δ> 0 such that Oδ(g) ⊂ G.
    [Show full text]
  • TOPOLOGY and ITS APPLICATIONS the Number of Complements in The
    TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS ELSEVIER Topology and its Applications 55 (1994) 101-125 The number of complements in the lattice of topologies on a fixed set Stephen Watson Department of Mathematics, York Uniuersity, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ont., Canada M3J IP3 (Received 3 May 1989) (Revised 14 November 1989 and 2 June 1992) Abstract In 1936, Birkhoff ordered the family of all topologies on a set by inclusion and obtained a lattice with 1 and 0. The study of this lattice ought to be a basic pursuit both in combinatorial set theory and in general topology. In this paper, we study the nature of complementation in this lattice. We say that topologies 7 and (T are complementary if and only if 7 A c = 0 and 7 V (T = 1. For simplicity, we call any topology other than the discrete and the indiscrete a proper topology. Hartmanis showed in 1958 that any proper topology on a finite set of size at least 3 has at least two complements. Gaifman showed in 1961 that any proper topology on a countable set has at least two complements. In 1965, Steiner showed that any topology has a complement. The question of the number of distinct complements a topology on a set must possess was first raised by Berri in 1964 who asked if every proper topology on an infinite set must have at least two complements. In 1969, Schnare showed that any proper topology on a set of infinite cardinality K has at least K distinct complements and at most 2” many distinct complements.
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Curve Orientation in the Alignment of Inconsistent Linear Datasets
    Relative Curve Orientation in the Alignment of Inconsistent Linear Datasets David N. Siriba, Daniel Eggert, Monika Sester Institute of Cartography and Geoinformatics (IKG), Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany Appelstraße 9a, 30167 Hannover, Germany. E-mail: {david.siriba, daniel.eggert, monika.sester}@ikg.uni-hannover.de ABSTRACT An approach for the alignment of a linear dataset of inconsistent positional accuracy with a more accurate one is presented. The approach consists of two main steps: path-matching and alignment based on relative curve orientations of the corresponding feature followed by a non-rigid transformation based on Thin plate Splines (TPS). The results obtained with this approach on two experimental cases show significant improvement in alignment and geometric accuracy of the lower accuracy datasets. 1. INTRODUCTION Geometric alignment of spatial features is one of the typical problems of data integration and usually carried out so that spatial features from two datasets that describe the same object coincide. It is achieved through point-based transformation that utilizes corresponding point features, which represent either some identified point landmarks or nodes mainly in a road network. Point-based transformation is adequate only for simple cases where positional discrepancies between the datasets are low and almost evenly distributed. In case the discrepancies are high and unevenly distributed, point-based approaches are not sufficient for aligning linear and polygonal features as they only guarantee that the control points will coincide. This problem is often encountered when integrating legacy datasets that contain large positional distortions with more geometrically accurate and newer datasets. Therefore corresponding linear features could be used to determine a more suitable geometric transformation between the datasets, in addition to point features.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1.3 Reminder of Some Simple Topological Concepts Definition 1.1.17
    1. Preliminaries The Hausdorffcriterion could be paraphrased by saying that smaller neigh- borhoods make larger topologies. This is a very intuitive theorem, because the smaller the neighbourhoods are the easier it is for a set to contain neigh- bourhoods of all its points and so the more open sets there will be. Proof. Suppose τ τ . Fixed any point x X,letU (x). Then, since U ⇒ ⊆ ∈ ∈B is a neighbourhood of x in (X,τ), there exists O τ s.t. x O U.But ∈ ∈ ⊆ O τ implies by our assumption that O τ ,soU is also a neighbourhood ∈ ∈ of x in (X,τ ). Hence, by Definition 1.1.10 for (x), there exists V (x) B ∈B s.t. V U. ⊆ Conversely, let W τ. Then for each x W ,since (x) is a base of ⇐ ∈ ∈ B neighbourhoods w.r.t. τ,thereexistsU (x) such that x U W . Hence, ∈B ∈ ⊆ by assumption, there exists V (x)s.t.x V U W .ThenW τ . ∈B ∈ ⊆ ⊆ ∈ 1.1.3 Reminder of some simple topological concepts Definition 1.1.17. Given a topological space (X,τ) and a subset S of X,the subset or induced topology on S is defined by τ := S U U τ . That is, S { ∩ | ∈ } a subset of S is open in the subset topology if and only if it is the intersection of S with an open set in (X,τ). Alternatively, we can define the subspace topology for a subset S of X as the coarsest topology for which the inclusion map ι : S X is continuous.
    [Show full text]
  • Topology Via Higher-Order Intuitionistic Logic
    Topology via higher-order intuitionistic logic Working version of 18th March 2004 These evolving notes will eventually be used to write a paper Mart´ınEscard´o Abstract When excluded middle fails, one can define a non-trivial topology on the one-point set, provided one doesn’t require all unions of open sets to be open. Technically, one obtains a subset of the subobject classifier, known as a dom- inance, which is to be thought of as a “Sierpinski set” that behaves as the Sierpinski space in classical topology. This induces topologies on all sets, rendering all functions continuous. Because virtually all theorems of classical topology require excluded middle (and even choice), it would be useless to reduce other topological notions to the notion of open set in the usual way. So, for example, our synthetic definition of compactness for a set X says that, for any Sierpinski-valued predicate p on X, the truth value of the statement “for all x ∈ X, p(x)” lives in the Sierpinski set. Similarly, other topological notions are defined by logical statements. We show that the proposed synthetic notions interact in the expected way. Moreover, we show that they coincide with the usual notions in cer- tain classical topological models, and we look at their interpretation in some computational models. 1 Introduction For suitable topologies, computable functions are continuous, and semidecidable properties of their inputs/outputs are open, but the converses of these two state- ments fail. Moreover, although semidecidable sets are closed under the formation of finite intersections and recursively enumerable unions, they fail to form the open sets of a topology in a literal sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions to Problem Set 4: Connectedness
    Solutions to Problem Set 4: Connectedness Problem 1 (8). Let X be a set, and T0 and T1 topologies on X. If T0 ⊂ T1, we say that T1 is finer than T0 (and that T0 is coarser than T1). a. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1, and suppose idY :(Y; T1) ! (Y; T0) is continuous. What is the relationship between T0 and T1? Justify your claim. b. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1 and suppose that T0 ⊂ T1. What does connectedness in one topology imply about connectedness in the other? c. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1 and suppose that T0 ⊂ T1. What does one topology being Hausdorff imply about the other? d. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1 and suppose that T0 ⊂ T1. What does convergence of a sequence in one topology imply about convergence in the other? Solution 1. a. By definition, idY is continuous if and only if preimages of open subsets of (Y; T0) are open subsets of (Y; T1). But, the preimage of U ⊂ Y is U itself. Hence, the map is continuous if and only if open subsets of (Y; T0) are open in (Y; T1), i.e. T0 ⊂ T1, i.e. T1 is finer than T0. ` b. If Y is disconnected in T0, it can be written as Y = U V , where U; V 2 T0 are non-empty. Then U and V are also open in T1; hence, Y is disconnected in T1 too. Thus, connectedness in T1 imply connectedness in T0.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Topology
    Natural Topology Frank Waaldijk ú —with great support from Wim Couwenberg ‡ ú www.fwaaldijk.nl/mathematics.html ‡ http://members.chello.nl/ w.couwenberg ∼ Preface to the second edition In the second edition, we have rectified some omissions and minor errors from the first edition. Notably the composition of natural morphisms has now been properly detailed, as well as the definition of (in)finite-product spaces. The bibliography has been updated (but remains quite incomplete). We changed the names ‘path morphism’ and ‘path space’ to ‘trail morphism’ and ‘trail space’, because the term ‘path space’ already has a well-used meaning in general topology. Also, we have strengthened the part of applied mathematics (the APPLIED perspective). We give more detailed representations of complete metric spaces, and show that natural morphisms are efficient and ubiquitous. We link the theory of star-finite metric developments to efficient computing with morphisms. We hope that this second edition thus provides a unified frame- work for a smooth transition from theoretical (constructive) topology to ap- plied mathematics. For better readability we have changed the typography. The Computer Mod- ern fonts have been replaced by the Arev Sans fonts. This was no small operation (since most of the symbol-with-sub/superscript configurations had to be redesigned) but worthwhile, we believe. It would be nice if more fonts become available for LATEX, the choice at this moment is still very limited. (the author, 14 October 2012) Copyright © Frank Arjan Waaldijk, 2011, 2012 Published by the Brouwer Society, Nijmegen, the Netherlands All rights reserved First edition, July 2011 Second edition, October 2012 Cover drawing ocho infinito xxiii by the author (‘ocho infinito’ in co-design with Wim Couwenberg) Summary We develop a simple framework called ‘natural topology’, which can serve as a theoretical and applicable basis for dealing with real-world phenom- ena.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonlinear Elasticity in a Deforming Ambient Space Contents 1
    Nonlinear Elasticity in a Deforming Ambient Space∗ Arash Yavari† Arkadas Ozakin‡ Souhayl Sadik§ 27 May 2016 Abstract In this paper we formulate a nonlinear elasticity theory in which the ambient space is evolving. For a continuum moving in an evolving ambient space, we model time dependency of the metric by a time- dependent embedding of the ambient space in a larger manifold with a fixed background metric. We derive both the tangential and the normal governing equations. We then reduce the standard energy balance written in the larger ambient space to that in the evolving ambient space. We consider quasi-static deformations of the ambient space and show that a quasi-static deformation of the ambient space results in stresses, in general. We linearize the nonlinear theory about a reference motion and show that variation of the spatial metric corresponds to an effective field of body forces. Keywords: Geometric mechanics, nonlinear elasticity, deforming ambient space. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Motion of an Elastic Body in an Evolving Ambient Space3 2.1 Lagrangian Field Theory of Elasticity in an Evolving Ambient Space................3 2.2 Conservation of Mass for Motion in an Evolving Ambient Space................... 10 2.3 Energy Balance in Nonlinear Elasticity in an Evolving Ambient Space................ 11 3 Quasi-Static Deformations of the Ambient Space Metric 14 3.1 Examples of elastic bodies in evolving ambient spaces and the induced stresses.......... 14 3.2 Elastic deformations due to linear perturbations of the ambient space metric............ 20 A Geometry of Riemannian Submanifolds 24 B An Alternative Derivation of the Tangent Balance of Linear Momentum 27 1 Introduction In the geometric theory of elasticity, an elastic body is represented by a material manifold B , which defines the natural, stress-free state of the body.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence Stability for Geometric Complexes Arxiv:1207.3885V3
    Persistence stability for geometric complexes Fr´ed´ericChazal∗, Vin de Silvay, Steve Oudotz November 11, 2013 Abstract In this paper we study the properties of the homology of different geometric filtered complexes (such as Vietoris{Rips, Cechˇ and witness complexes) built on top of totally bounded metric spaces. Using recent developments in the theory of topological persis- tence, we provide simple and natural proofs of the stability of the persistent homology of such complexes with respect to the Gromov–Hausdorff distance. We also exhibit a few noteworthy properties of the homology of the Rips and Cechˇ complexes built on top of compact spaces. 1 Introduction The inference of topological properties of metric spaces from approximations is a problem that has attracted special attention in computational topology in recent years. Given a metric space (Y; dY ) approximating an unknown metric space (X; dX ), the aim is to build a simplicial complex on the vertex set Y whose homology or homotopy type is the same as X. Note that, although Y is finite in many applications, finiteness is not a requirement a priori. Among the many geometric complexes available to us, the Vietoris{Rips complex (or simply `Rips complex') is particularly useful, being easy to compute and having good approximation arXiv:1207.3885v3 [math.AT] 15 Nov 2013 properties. We recall the definition. Let (X; dx) be a metric space and α a real parameter (the `scale'). Then Rips(X; α) is the simplical complex on X whose simplices are the finite subsets of X with diameter at most α: σ = [x0; x1; : : : ; xk] Rips(X; α) dX (xi; xj) α for all i; j 2 , ≤ ∗[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1 When (X; dX ) is a closed Riemannian manifold, J.-C.
    [Show full text]
  • Basis (Topology), Basis (Vector Space), Ck, , Change of Variables (Integration), Closed, Closed Form, Closure, Coboundary, Cobou
    Index basis (topology), Ôç injective, ç basis (vector space), ç interior, Ôò isomorphic, ¥ ∞ C , Ôý, ÔÔ isomorphism, ç Ck, Ôý, ÔÔ change of variables (integration), ÔÔ kernel, ç closed, Ôò closed form, Þ linear, ç closure, Ôò linear combination, ç coboundary, Þ linearly independent, ç coboundary map, Þ nullspace, ç cochain complex, Þ cochain homotopic, open cover, Ôò cochain homotopy, open set, Ôý cochain map, Þ cocycle, Þ partial derivative, Ôý cohomology, Þ compact, Ôò quotient space, â component function, À range, ç continuous, Ôç rank-nullity theorem, coordinate function, Ôý relative topology, Ôò dierential, Þ resolution, ¥ dimension, ç resolution of the identity, À direct sum, second-countable, Ôç directional derivative, Ôý short exact sequence, discrete topology, Ôò smooth homotopy, dual basis, À span, ç dual space, À standard topology on Rn, Ôò exact form, Þ subspace, ç exact sequence, ¥ subspace topology, Ôò support, Ô¥ Hausdor, Ôç surjective, ç homotopic, symmetry of partial derivatives, ÔÔ homotopy, topological space, Ôò image, ç topology, Ôò induced topology, Ôò total derivative, ÔÔ Ô trivial topology, Ôò vector space, ç well-dened, â ò Glossary Linear Algebra Denition. A real vector space V is a set equipped with an addition operation , and a scalar (R) multiplication operation satisfying the usual identities. + Denition. A subset W ⋅ V is a subspace if W is a vector space under the same operations as V. Denition. A linear combination⊂ of a subset S V is a sum of the form a v, where each a , and only nitely many of the a are nonzero. v v R ⊂ v v∈S v∈S ⋅ ∈ { } Denition.Qe span of a subset S V is the subspace span S of linear combinations of S.
    [Show full text]
  • On Orbit Configuration Spaces of Spheres
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Topology and its Applications 118 (2002) 85–102 On orbit configuration spaces of spheres Eva Maria Feichtner a,∗, Günter M. Ziegler b,∗ a Departement Mathematik, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland b Fachbereich Mathematik, MA 6-2, TU Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany Received 26 January 2000; received in revised form 10 July 2000 Abstract k The orbit configuration space FZ2 (S ,n) is the space of all ordered n-tuples of points on the k k-sphere such that no two of them are identical or antipodal. The cohomology algebra of FZ2 (S ,n), with integer coefficients, is here determined completely, and described in terms of generators, bases and relations. To this end, we analyze the cohomology spectral sequence of a fibration k → k FZ2 (S ,n) S , where the fiber—in contrast to the situation for the classical configuration space F(Sk,n)—is not the complement of a linear subspace arrangement. Analogies to the arrangement case, however, are crucial for getting a complete description of its cohomology. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Orbit configuration spaces; Integral cohomology algebra; Subspace arrangements; Leray–Serre spectral sequence 1. Introduction The ordered configuration spaces n F(M, n) := (x1,x2,...,xn) ∈ M : xi = xj for all i = j of a manifold M were first studied by Fadell and Neuwirth [15] in 1962. The cohomology of such spaces has received a lot of attention, at least since the work by Arnol’d [1] related to Hilbert’s 13th problem.
    [Show full text]
  • (Iso19107) of the Open Geospatial Consortium
    Technical Report A Java Implementation of the OpenGIS™ Feature Geometry Abstract Specification (ISO 19107 Spatial Schema) Sanjay Dominik Jena, Jackson Roehrig {[email protected], [email protected]} University of Applied Sciences Cologne Institute for Technology in the Tropics Version 0.1 July 2007 ABSTRACT The Open Geospatial Consortium’s (OGC) Feature Geometry Abstract Specification (ISO/TC211 19107) describes a geometric and topological data structure for two and three dimensional representations of vector data. GeoAPI, an OGC working group, defines inter- face APIs derived from the ISO 19107. GeoTools provides an open source Java code library, which implements (OGC) specifications in close collaboration with GeoAPI projects. This work describes a partial but serviceable implementation of the ISO 19107 specifi- cation and its corresponding GeoAPI interfaces considering previous implementations and related specifications. It is intended to be a first impulse to the GeoTools project towards a full implementation of the Feature Geometry Abstract Specification. It focuses on aspects of spatial operations, such as robustness, precision, persistence and performance. A JUnit Test Suite was developed to verify the compliance of the implementation with the GeoAPI. The ISO 19107 is discussed and proposals for improvement of the GeoAPI are presented. II © Copyright by Sanjay Dominik Jena and Jackson Roehrig 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our appreciation goes to the whole of the GeoTools and GeoAPI communities, in par- ticular to Martin Desruisseaux, Bryce Nordgren, Jody Garnett and Graham Davis for their extensive support and several discussions, and to the JTS developers, the JTS developer mail- ing list and to those, who will make use of and continue the implementation accomplished in this work.
    [Show full text]