Spatial vagueness and imprecision in databases

ABSTRACT

The impossibility of current spatial database systems and GIS to handle spatial vagueness and imprecision has been recognized as an important problem in the spatial database domain. For years, researchers have focused on identifying the appropriate concepts that are necessary to effectively and efficiently deal with the vagueness and imprecision that not seldomly appears, but is widespread amongst spatial objects (especially those that are naturally occurring such as forests, mountains, and rivers). In this paper, we analyze the most popular formalisms for dealing with spatial uncertainty in databases. The analysis in this paper is centered around the definition of our Vague Spatial Algebra (VASA) which exemplifies a complete approach to handle vagueness in spatial databases. We compare VASA with existing concepts based on rough set theory and fuzzy set theory.

REFERENCES

• 1: Altman, D. 1994. Fuzzy Set Theoretic Approaches for Handling Imprecision in Spatial Analysis. Int. Journal of Geographical Information Systems 8, 3, 271--289.
• 2: Beaubouef, T. and Petry, F. 2002. A Rough Set Foundation for Spatial Data Mining Involving Vague Regions. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems. IEEE Computer Society, 767--772.
• 3: Clementini, E. and Felice, P. 1996. An Algebraic Model for Spatial Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries. In Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries. Taylor & Francis, 153--169.
• 4: Cohn, A. G. and Gotts, N. M. 1996. The 'Egg-Yolk' Representation of Regions with Indeterminate Boundaries. In Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries. Taylor & Francis, 171--187.
• 5: Dilo, A., de By, R., and Stein, A. 2004. Definition and Implementation of Vague Objects. In Int. Symp. on Spatial Data Quality. 139--145.
• 6: Martin Erwig , Markus Schneider, Vague Regions, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Advances in Spatial Databases, p.298-320, July 15-18, 1997
• 7: Finn, J. T. 1993. Use of the Average Mutual Information Index in Evaluating Classification Error and Consistency. Int. Journal of Geographical Information Systems 7, 4, 349--366.
• 8: Simon Parsons, Current Approaches to Handling Imperfect Information in Data and Knowledge Bases, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, v.8 n.3, p.353-372, June 1996 [doi>10.1109/69.506705 ]
• 9: Pauly, A. and Schneider, M. 2004. Vague Spatial Data Types, Set Operations, and Predicates. In East-European Conf. on Advances in Databases and Information Systems. 379--392.
• 10: Pauly, A. and Schneider, M. 2006. Topological Reasoning for Identifying a Complete Set of Topological Predicates between Vague Spatial Objects. In FLAIRS Conference. AAAI Press.
• 11: Pawlak, Z. 1982. Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 341--356.
• 12: Markus Schneider, Uncertainty Management for Spatial Data in Databases: Fuzzy Spatial Data Types, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Advances in Spatial Databases, p.330-351, July 20-23, 1999
• 13: Markus Schneider , Thomas Behr, Topological relationships between complex spatial objects, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.31 n.1, p.39-81, March 2006 [doi>10.1145/1132863.1132865]
• 14: Michael Worboys, Imprecision in Finite Resolution Spatial Data, Geoinformatica, v.2 n.3, p.257-279, October 1998 [doi>10.1023/A:1009769705164 ]