skip to main content
10.1145/2077357.2077364acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A navigation ontology for outdoor-indoor space: (work-in-progress)

Published:01 November 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

People's daily lives are situated in both outdoor and indoor space. However, traditional GIS focuses only on outdoor space. Therefore, research on providing a unified model of the two spaces and making the navigation between and within them seamless is important. This study lays the ontological and formal foundations for a model of navigation in a unified outdoor and indoor space. Four levels of ontologies are under construction: upper ontology (being constructing by using and revising those concepts introduced in previous work), domain ontologies (structure ontologies of spaces), navigation task ontology, and application ontologies.

References

  1. Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). www.ifomis.org/bfo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ontology for OI-space. nav.spatial.maine.edu/oispacewiki/index.php/ontology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. OpenCyc for the Semantic Web. sw.opencyc.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO). www.ontologyportal.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. WordNet Search - 3.1. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Galton. Fields and objects in space, time, and space-time. Event-Oriented Approaches in Geographic Information Science: A Special Issue of Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1):39--68, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. Gibson. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. Griffiths, A. Fernandes, N. Paton, B. Huang, M. Worboys, C. Johnson, K. Mason, and J. Stell. Tripod: a comprehensive system for the management of spatial and aspatial historical objects. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM international symposium on Advances in geographic information systems, pages 118--123. ACM, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. Guarino. Formal ontology in information systems. In N. Guarino, editor, Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Proceedings of FOIS98, pages 3--17. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. Hornsby and M. Egenhofer. Modeling moving objects over multiple granularities. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 36(1):177--194, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Klepeis, W. Nelson, W. Ott, J. Robinson, A. Tsang, P. Switzer, J. Behar, S. Hern, and W. Engelmann. The national human activity pattern survey (nhaps): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11(3):231--252, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. T. Kolbe, G. Gröger, and L. Plümer. CityGML--Interoperable access to 3D city models. In First International Symposium on Geo-Information for Disaster Management GI4DM. Springer, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. K. Lynch. The Image of the City. the MIT Press, 1960.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. Norman and I. Books24x7. The Design of Everyday Things, volume 16. Basic Books New York, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. Partsinevelos, A. Stefanidis, and P. Agouris. Automated spatiotemporal scaling for video generalization. In Image Processing, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 International Conference on, volume 1, pages 177--180. IEEE, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. M. Sorrows and S. Hirtle. The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. Spatial information theory. Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, pages 37--50, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Sowa. Building, sharing, and merging ontologies. www.jfsowa.com/ontology/ontoshar.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Worboys and K. Hornsby. From objects to events: GEM, the geospatial event model. Geographic Information Science, pages 327--343, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. L. Yang and M. Worboys. Similarities and differences between outdoor and indoor space from the perspective of navigation. Accepted poster. Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2011), September, Belfast, ME.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A navigation ontology for outdoor-indoor space: (work-in-progress)

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ISA '11: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Indoor Spatial Awareness
          November 2011
          64 pages
          ISBN:9781450310352
          DOI:10.1145/2077357

          Copyright © 2011 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 November 2011

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate5of7submissions,71%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader