Languages of Spatial Relations" Closing Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NCGIA Initiative 2 "Languages of Spatial Relations" Closing Report David M. Mark and Andrew U. Frank August 1992 Abstract This report describes the results of NCGIA Research Initiative 2 "Languages of Spatial Relations". It starts by comparing the background and objectives of the initiative as originally planned with our current understanding of the problem following the work carried out during the initiative. It then assesses the work in detail against five criteria: 1. Research Accomplished; 2. Research Agenda Development; 3. Contribution to GIS Education; 4. Implications for Science Policy; and 5. Comments on the Research Initiative Process. June 1992 Closing Report—NCGIA Research Initiative 2: Languages of Spatial Relations David M. Mark and Andrew U. Frank 2 1. Background In the early 1980s, members of the GIS community become increasingly aware that a number of the problems experienced with the use of geographic information systems were related to how the geometric aspects of reality were represented, stored, and processed in a computer. Various groups had experienced problems with the programming of spatial algorithms. Users had observed that even commercial systems would produce erroneous results or break down when processing spatial 'overlay' operations, and there was extensive discussion of the 'gaps and sliver' problem resulting from overlay. Most GISs were based on digitized maps and the manipulation of cartographic line drawings. At the same time, the first systems to help car drivers navigate appeared on the market and a discussion of what information drivers would need and how best to present this information started. In 1986, Andrew Frank and Werner Kuhn published a paper that proposed a simple geometric solution for the modelling of geometric data (Frank and Kuhn,1986), and similar ideas were incorporated into the design of a commercial GIS at the same time. The NSF program in Geography and Regional Sciences awarded a grant for the development of a 'Spatial Theory' in the same year. Around the same time, David Mark was using artificial intelligence techniques to simulate route selection by drivers, based on principles from cognitive science, in order to model ways to provide navigation assistance to drivers (Mark, 1985; Mark and McGranaghan, 1986). While quite disparate at the time, these two lines of research clearly laid a foundation for the work to be undertaken within Initiative 2. The NSF solicitation for proposals to establish a National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis listed 'general theory of spatial relations and database structures' as a an area of importance, and the proposal of our consortium responded with a proposal that included twelve specific research initiatives. Research Initiative 2 was entitled "Languages of Spatial Relations," and had the following objectives: 1. Identify formal cognitive/semantic models of spatial concepts and relations in natural languages 2. Develop reliable methods for determining reference frames for spatial language 3. Construct formal mathematical/logical models of spatial concepts and relations based on topology and geometry 4. Integrate the two kinds of formal models into a general theory of spatial relations This report is being tendered after the closing of Initiative 2, late in 1990. We do not mean to suggest, however, that we have solved all aspects of this problem, nor that research on languages of spatial relations at the NCGIA has ended. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to document what has been achieved so far, and what has been learned about the research approaches being employed within the NCGIA. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis 2 August 1992 Closing Report—NCGIA Research Initiative 2: Languages of Spatial Relations David M. Mark and Andrew U. Frank 3 1.1 Summary of Achievements In the past 6 years, research on the topic of 'spatial theory' has changed substantially. The research focus has shifted from the technical problem of how to represent geometric figures, and now is firmly centered on the question of how to represent geographic space and geographic phenomena in ways that are consistent with how people understand spatial situations. From the expectation that a general purpose set of modules to treat geometry in a GIS would be possible (the popular "tool-box" approach), many researchers and software developers now are concentrating on the identification of multiple spatial conceptualizations. In fact, it is an open question if a 'unification' across cultures, languages, disciplines, and applications is possible. Originally, the 'spatial theory' was considered a problem of encoding geometry and developing appropriate algorithms. Today the connections between tasks a user wants to perform, the design of the user interface of the system, and spatial concepts is clearly seen (see Frank and Mark, 1991). Couclelis (in press) proposes a theoretical framework for a cognitive geography, and differentiates several levels of spatial cognition. Some of the notions introduced from cognitive linguistics and substantially adapted to geographic space have found wide acceptance and researchers outside the center are now using them. The 'Image Schemata' of Johnson (1987) currently form the best list of primitives for cognition of space, and are thought to applicable for many purposes (Mark, 1989b). The typology of spaces according to different types of experiences, initially proposed by linguist David Zubin at the Specialist Meeting (see Mark et al., 1989), also has guided much subsequent research. The approach that we have taken in Research Initiative 2 has successfully brought together mathematical methods and results from cognitive science research, especially cognitive linguistics. The three workshops conducted within the Initiative brought together researchers interested in the topic from a very wide range of disciplines, including linguistics, geography, mathematics, engineering, cartography, computer science, anthropology, and others (see combined participants list in appendix). We are convinced that the interdisciplinary nature of the approach has contributed substantially to the progress made. The concluding meeting of the Research Initiative was a two-week long Advanced Study Institute funded by NATO; again, researchers from the same broad range of disciplines were invited as lecturers. The contributions to this meeting were later collected in a book (Mark and Frank, 1991). The work conducted under Initiative 2 has not only resulted in a clearer understanding of the problems involved (leading to more detailed research ideas), but also has produced a number of directly useful results. During the specialist meeting, topological relations were identified as a set of spatial relations that had to be formalized. In his dissertation at Maine, Max Egenhofer applied a method previously used for the formalization of time intervals to the problem of two-dimensional spatial relations between extended objects (Egenhofer, 1989b) . This concept was immediately refined and integrated in a commercial GIS. The resulting classification of topological relations was quickly accepted by other researchers and has been used in a number of contexts. Recently, Egenhofer has generalized the method for spatial relations among point, line, and area objects. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis 3 August 1992 Closing Report—NCGIA Research Initiative 2: Languages of Spatial Relations David M. Mark and Andrew U. Frank 4 The initiative had strong ties to the GIS industry. Results have not only been published in the scientific literature, but also have been rapidly and effectively transfered from the university to software product. We have already mentioned that these definitions of topological relations have been used in a commercial product both to guide the coding effort as well as to explain to the user the definitions used. In another example, the theoretical discussion under Initiative 2 of spatial languages as they apply at the level of the user interface has influenced the design of a recent GIS viewing software by another major company. As noted above, the formal closing of this initiative does not imply that all problems are resolved or that no further work is required or appropriate. The initiative has been completed in the sense that it has fulfilled the main objectives that were identified initially. Furthermore, new insights have transformed the initial objectives significantly, and a new research plan will be necessary and a new focus recommended. Indeed, Initiative 2 research has continued very directly in two other Initiatives. A major outcome of Initiative 2 was the definition of a new Research Initiative on "User Interfaces for GIS"—Initiative 13 is already underway, and treats closely related topics from the particular perspective of how to present geographic concepts, phenomena, processes, and procedures to the end users of GISs. On the other hand, research initiative 10 "Spatio-Temporal Reasoning and GIS," continues the search for formal models of spatial concepts, and extends the topic to focus on spatial reasoning processes and on the inclusion of time and temporal reasoning. The remainder of this report addresses five points of discussion posed by a subcommittee of the NCGIA Board of Directors, to be answered in closing reports for Initiatives. Under "Research Accomplished," we describe specific research projects and related activities. Under "Research Agenda Development," we compare and contrast the