Efficient Implementation Techniques for Topological Predicates on Complex Spatial Objects | GeoInformatica Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Efficient Implementation Techniques for Topological Predicates on Complex Spatial Objects

  • Published:
GeoInformatica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Topological relationships like overlap, inside, meet, and disjoint uniquely characterize the relative position between objects in space. For a long time, they have been a focus of interdisciplinary research as in artificial intelligence, cognitive science, linguistics, robotics, and spatial reasoning. Especially as predicates, they support the design of suitable query languages for spatial data retrieval and analysis in spatial database systems and geographical information systems. While, to a large extent, conceptual aspects of topological predicates (like their definition and reasoning with them) as well as strategies for avoiding unnecessary or repetitive predicate executions (like predicate migration and spatial index structures) have been emphasized, the development of robust and efficient implementation techniques for them has been largely neglected. Especially the recent design of topological predicates for all combinations of complex spatial data types has resulted in a large increase of their numbers and stressed the importance of their efficient implementation. The goal of this article is to develop correct and efficient implementation techniques of topological predicates for all combinations of complex spatial data types including two-dimensional point, line, and region objects, as they have been specified by different authors and in different commercial and public domain software packages. Our solution consists of two phases. In the exploration phase, for a given scene of two spatial objects, all topological events like intersection and meeting situations are summarized in two precisely defined topological feature vectors (one for each argument object of a topological predicate) whose specifications are characteristic and unique for each combination of spatial data types. These vectors serve as input for the evaluation phase which analyzes the topological events and determines the Boolean result of a topological predicate (predicate verification) or the kind of topological predicate (predicate determination) by a formally defined method called nine-intersection matrix characterization. Besides this general evaluation method, the article presents an optimized method for predicate verification, called matrix thinning, and an optimized method for predicate determination, called minimum cost decision tree. The methods presented in this article are applicable to all known complete collections of mutually exclusive topological predicates that are formally based on the well known nine-intersection model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. If, in the determination query case, a predicate p(A, B) has to be processed, for which the dimension of object A is higher than the dimension of object B, we process the converse predicate \(p^\mathit{\rm conv}(B, A)\) where \(p^\mathit{\rm conv}\) has the transpose of the nine-intersection matrix (see Fig. 2a) of p.

References

  1. M. de Berg, M. van Krefeld, M. Overmars, and O. Schwarzkopf. Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications. 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, 2000.

  2. A. Brodsky and X.S. Wang. On Approximation-based Query Evaluation, Expensive Predicates and Constraint Objects. Int. Workshop on Constraints, Databases, and Logic Programming, 1995.

  3. J. Claussen, A. Kemper, G. Moerkotte, K. Peithner, and M. Steinbrunn. “Optimization and evaluation of disjunctive queries,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 12(2):238–260, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. E. Clementini and P. Di Felice. “A comparison of methods for representing topological relationships,” Information Sciences Applications, Vol. 3(3):149–178, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. E. Clementini and P. Di Felice. “A model for representing topological relationships between complex geometric features in spatial databases,” Information Systems, Vol. 90(1–4):121–136, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. Clementini and P. Di Felice. “Topological invariants for lines,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 10(1), 1998.

  7. E. Clementini, P. Di Felice, and G. Califano. “Composite regions in topological queries,” Information Systems, Vol. 20(7):579–594, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. E. Clementini, P. Di Felice, and P. van Oosterom. “A small set of formal topological relationships suitable for end-user interaction,” in 3rd Int. Symp. on Advances in Spatial Databases, LNCS 692, pp. 277–295, 1993.

  9. E. Clementini, J. Sharma, and M.J. Egenhofer. “Modeling topological spatial relations: strategies for query processing,” Computers and Graphics, Vol. 18(6):815–822, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Z. Cui, A.G. Cohn, and D.A. Randell. “Qualitative and topological relationships,” in 3rd Int. Symp. on Advances in Spatial Databases, LNCS 692, pp. 296–315, 1993.

  11. M.J. Egenhofer. “Spatial SQL: A query and presentation language,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 6(1):86–94, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. M.J. Egenhofer and J. Herring. “A mathematical framework for the definition of topological relationships,” in 4th Int. Symp. on Spatial Data Handling, pp. 803–813, 1990.

  13. M.J. Egenhofer and J. Herring. Categorizing binary topological relations between regions, lines, and points in geographic databases. Technical Report 90-12, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1990.

  14. M.J. Egenhofer and D. Mark. “Modeling conceptual neighborhoods of topological line-region relations,” Int. Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 9(5):555–565, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. M.J. Egenhofer. “Deriving the composition of binary topological relations,” Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 2(2):133–149, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. M.J. Egenhofer, E. Clementini, and P. Di Felice. “Topological relations between regions with holes,” Int. Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 8(2):128–142, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  17. ESRI Spatial Database Engine (SDE). Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 1995.

  18. S. Gaal. Point Set Topology. Academic Press, 1964.

  19. R.H. Güting. “Geo-relational algebra: A model and query language for geometric database systems,” in Int. Conf. on Extending Database Technology, pp. 506–527, 1988.

  20. R.H. Güting and M. Schneider. “Realm-based spatial data types: The ROSE algebra,” VLDB Journal, Vol. 4:100–143, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. J.M. Hellerstein. “Practical predicate placement,” in ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pp. 325–335.

  22. J.M. Hellerstein and M. Stonebraker. “Predicate migration: Optimizing queries with expensive predicates,” in ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pp. 267–276, 1993.

  23. IBM. Informix geodetic datablade module: User’s guide, 2002.

  24. IBM. DB2 spatial extender and geodetic data management feature—user’s guide and reference, 2006.

  25. International Standard Organization. ISO 19107: Geographic information—Spatial schema, 2003.

  26. M. McKenney, A. Pauly, R. Praing, and M. Schneider. Dimension-Refined Topological Predicates. 13th ACM Symp. on Geographic Information Systems, pp. 240–249, 2005.

  27. Open Geospatial Consortium Incorporation. OpenGIS implementation specification for geographic information – simple feature access – Part 1: Common architecture, 2006.

  28. Oracle Corporation. Oracle Spatial User’s Guide and Reference 10g Release 2, 2005.

  29. J.A. Orenstein and F.A. Manola. “PROBE Spatial Data Modeling and Query Processing in an Image Database Application,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 14:611–629, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. R. Praing and M. Schneider. Efficient implementation techniques for topological predicates on complex spatial objects: The evaluation phase. Technical Report, University of Florida, Department of Computer & Information Science & Engineering, 2006.

  31. M.A. Rodriguez, M.J. Egenhofer, and A.D.Blaser. “Query pre-processing of topological constraints: Comparing a composition-based with neighborhood-based approach,” in Int. Symp. on Spatial and Temporal Databases, LNCS 2750, pp. 362–379. Springer-Verlag, 2003.

  32. M. Schneider. “Spatial data types for database systems-finite resolution geometry for geographic information systems,” volume LNCS 1288. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Schneider. “Implementing topological predicates for complex regions,” in Int. Symp. on Spatial Data Handling, pp. 313–328, 2002.

  34. M. Schneider. “Computing the topological relationship of complex regions,” in 15th Int. Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp. 844–853, 2004.

  35. M. Schneider and T. Behr. “Topological relationships between complex spatial objects,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 31(1):39–81, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. M. Schneider and R. Praing. Efficient implementation techniques for topological predicates on complex spatial objects: The exploration phase. Technical Report, University of Florida, Department of Computer & Information Science & Engineering, 2006.

  37. Vivid Solutions. JTS Topology Suite: Technical Specifications, 2003.

  38. M.F. Worboys and P. Bofakos. “A canonical model for a class of areal spatial objects,” in 3rd Int. Symp. on Advances in Spatial Databases (LNCS 692), pp. 36–52. Springer-Verlag, 1993.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Reasey Praing & Markus Schneider

Authors
  1. Reasey Praing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Schneider.

Additional information

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant number NSF-CAREER-IIS-0347574.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Praing, R., Schneider, M. Efficient Implementation Techniques for Topological Predicates on Complex Spatial Objects. Geoinformatica 12, 313–356 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-007-0035-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-007-0035-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation