Abstract
This paper examines diagrams which exploit qualitative spatial relations (QSRs) for representation. Our point of departure is the theory that such diagram systems are most effective when their formal properties match those of the domains that they represent (e.g. [1,2,3]). We argue that this is true in certain cases (e.g. when a user is constructing diagrammatic representations of a certain kind) but that formal properties cannot be studied in isolation from an account of the cognitive capacities of diagram users to detect and categorize diagram objects and relations.
We discuss a cognitively salient repertoire of elements in qualitative visual languages, which is different from the set of primitives in mathematical topology, and explore how this repertoire affects the expressivity of the languages in terms of their vocabulary and the possible spatial relations between diagram elements.
We then give a detailed analysis of the formal properties of relations between the diagram elements. It is shown that the analysis can be exploited systematically for the purposes of designing a diagram system and analysing expressivity. We demonstrate this methodology with reference to several domains, e.g. diagrams for file systems and set theory (see e.g. [4]).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Jon Barwise and Atsushi Shimojima. Surrogate Reasoning. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 4(2):7–27, 1995.
Keith Stenning and Oliver Lemon. Aligning logical and psychological perspectives on Diagrammatic Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2000. (in press).
Oliver Lemon. Comparing the Efficacy of Visual Languages. In Barker-Plummer, Beaver, Scotto di Luzio, and vanBenthem, editors, Logic, Language, and Diagrams. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2000. (in press).
Oliver von Klopp Lemon and Ana von Klopp Lemon. Cognitive issues in GUI design: Constructing website maps. In Andreas Butz, Antonio Kruger, and Patrick Olivier, editors, AAAI Smart Graphics Symposium, pages 128–132, 2000.
Sinan Si Alhir. UML in a Nutshell. O’Reilly, 1998.
David Harel. On Visual Formalisms. Communications of the ACM, 31(5):514–530, 1988.
Oliver Lemon and Ian Pratt. Spatial Logic and the Complexity of Diagrammatic Reasoning. Machine GRAPHICS and VISION, 6(1):89–108, 1997. (Special Issue on Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning).
Atsushi Shimojima. On the Efficacy of Representation. PhD thesis, Indiana University, 1996.
Dejuan Wang. Studies on the Formal Semantics of Pictures. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, Amsterdam, 1995.
Atsushi Shimojima. Constraint-Preserving Representations. In Logic, Language and Computation, volume 2, number 96 in Lecture Notes, pages 296–317. CSLI, Stanford, 1999.
Hector J. Levesque. Logic and the Complexity of Reasoning. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17:355–389, 1988.
Volker Haarslev. Formal Semantics of Visual Languages using Spatial Reasoning. In IEEE symposium on Visual Languages, pages 156–163. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.
John Gooday and Anthony Cohn. Using spatial logic to describe visual languages. Artificial Intelligence Review, 10:171–186, 1996.
Stephen Casner. Automatic design of efficient visual problem representations. In AAAI, pages 157–160, 1992.
Jock Mackinlay. Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1986.
Jacques Bertin. Graphics and Graphic Information Processing. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1981.
Stephen E. Palmer. Fundamental Aspects of Cognitive Representation. In Elanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, editors, Cognition and Categorization, pages 259–303. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., 1978.
H. G. Eggleston. Convexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969.
G. Kuratowski. Sur le probleme des courbes gauches en topologie. Fund. Math., 15:271–283, 1930.
George Englebretsen. Linear Diagrams for Syllogisms (with Relationals). Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33(1):37–69, 1992.
Keith Stenning and Jon Oberlander. A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1):97–140, 1995.
Oliver Lemon and Ian Pratt. On the insufficiency of linear diagrams for syllogisms. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 39(4), 1998. (in press, to appear 2000).
Mike Scaife and Yvonne Rogers. External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45:185–213, 1996.
Oliver Lemon and Ian Pratt. Logical and Diagrammatic Reasoning: the complexity of conceptual space. InMichael Shafto and Pat Langley, editors, 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 430–435, New Jersey, 1997. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
von Klopp Lemon, A., von Klopp Lemon, O. (2000). Constraint Matching for Diagram Design: Qualitative Visual Languages. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds) Theory and Application of Diagrams. Diagrams 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1889. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67915-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44590-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive