Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On the (Limited) Difference between Feature and Geometric Semantic Similarity Models

  • Conference paper
GeoSpatial Semantics (GeoS 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 6631))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 980 Accesses

Abstract

Semantic similarity assessment is central to many geographic information analysis tasks. A reader of the geographic information science literature on semantic similarity assessment processes could easily get the impression that two of the most common approaches, the feature model and the geometric model, are incompatible and radically different. Through a review of literature I seek to elaborate on and clarify that these two approaches are in fact compatible, and I finish with a brief discussion of the handling of uncertain and missing values in these representations.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Medin, D.L.: Concepts and Conceptual Structure. Am. Psychol. 44, 1469–1481 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lee, T.B., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284, 34–43 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rosch, E.: Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, E., Loyd, B.B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett, B.: What is a Forest? On the Vagueness of Certain Geographic Concepts. Topoi. 20, 189–201 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Couclelis, H.: People Manipulate Objects (but Cultivate Fields): Beyond the Raster-Vector Debate in GIS. In: Frank, A.U., Campari, I., Formentini, U. (eds.) Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, pp. 65–77. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher, P.: Sorites paradox and vague geographies. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 113, 7–18 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher, P., Wood, J.: What is a Mountain? or The Englishman who went up a Boolean Geographical concept but realised it was Fuzzy. Geography 83, 247–256 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Salge, F.: Semantic accuracy. In: Guptill, S.C., Morisson, J.L. (eds.) Elements of Spatial Data Quality, pp. 139–151. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Athanasis, N., Kalabokidis, K., Vaitis, M., Soulakellis, N.: Towards a semantics-based approach in the development of geographic portals. Computers and Geosciences 35, 301–308 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Scharl, A., Tochtermann, K.: The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society (Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy, G.L.: The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schwering, A.: Approaches to semantic similarity measurement for geo-spatial data: A survey. Transactions in GIS 12, 5–29 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahlqvist, O.: A Parameterized Representation of Uncertain Conceptual Spaces. Transactions in GIS 8, 493–514 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feng, C.C., Flewelling, D.M.: Assessment of semantic similarity between land use/land cover classification systems. Comput., Environ. Urban Syst. 28, 229–246 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Raubal, M.: Formalizing Conceptual Spaces. In: Varzi, A., Vieu, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2004), pp. 153–164. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rodriguez, M., Egenhofer, M.: Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 442–456 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Song, D., Bruza, P.: Towards context sensitive information inference. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54, 321–334 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gati, I., Tversky, A.: Representations of qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 325–340 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Restle, F.: Psychology of Judgment and Choice. Wiley, New York (1961)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Johannesson, M.: Modelling asymmetric similarity with prominence. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 53, 121–139 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith, E.E., Medin, D.L.: Categories and concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1981)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 84, 327–352 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rada, R., Mili, H., Bicknell, E., Blettner, M.: Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 19, 17–30 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwering, A., Raubal, M.: Measuring Semantic Similarity between Geospatial Conceptual Regions. In: Rodríguez, M.A., Cruz, I., Levashkin, S., Egenhofer, M.J. (eds.) GeoS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3799, pp. 90–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, Cambrige (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Velleman, P.F., Wilkinson, L.: Nominal, Ordinal, Interval, and Ratio Typologies Are Misleading. The American Statistician 47, 65–72 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stevens, S.S.: On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science 103, 677–680 (1946)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E.: On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts. Cognition. International Journal of Cognitive Psychology Paris 9, 35–38 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Janowicz, K., Raubal, M.: Affordance-Based Similarity Measurement for Entity Types. In: Winter, S., Duckham, M., Kulik, L., Kuipers, B. (eds.) COSIT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4736, pp. 133–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Williams, J., Steele, N.: Difference, distance and similarity as a basis for fuzzy decision support based on prototypical decision classes. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 131, 35–46 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Verguts, T., Ameel, E., Storms, G.: Measures of similarity in models of categorization. Mem. Cognit. 32, 379–389 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353 (1965)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Masson, M.H., Denoeux, T.: Multidimensional scaling of fuzzy dissimilarity data. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 128, 339–352 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Zadeh, L.A.: Quantitative fuzzy semantics. Information Sciences 3, 159–176 (1971)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. International Journal of General Systems 17, 191–209 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Zadeh, L.A.: The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning. Information Sciences 8, 199–249 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. van Fraassen, B.C.: Singular Terms, Truth-Value Gaps, and Free Logic. The Journal of Philosophy 63, 481–495 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dubois, D., Esteva, F., Godo, L., Prade, H.: An information-based discussion of vagueness. Fuzzy Systems, 781–784 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fisher, P.F.: Models of uncertainty in spatial data. In: Geographical Information Systems - Principles and Technical Issues, pp. 191–205. Wiley, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tran, L., Duckstein, L.: Comparison of fuzzy numbers using a fuzzy distance measure. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 130, 331–341 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Bortolan, G., Degani, R.: Review of some methods for ranking fuzzy subsets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 15, 1–20 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Bouchon-Meunier, B., Rifqi, M., Bothorel, S.: Towards general measures of comparison of objects. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 84, 143–153 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Guarino, N.: Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 43, 625–640 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ahlqvist, O.: Using semantic similarity metrics to uncover category and land cover change. In: Rodríguez, M.A., Cruz, I., Levashkin, S., Egenhofer, M.J. (eds.) GeoS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3799, pp. 107–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Ahlqvist, O., Gahegan, M.: Probing the relationship between classification error and class similarity. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 71, 1365–1373 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gahegan, M., Pike, W.: A situated Knowledge Representation of Geographical Information. Transactions in GIS 10, 727–749 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, 154 N Oval Mall, Columbus, OH, 43210, U.S.A.

    Ola Ahlqvist

Authors
  1. Ola Ahlqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Naval Academy Research Institute, 29240, Brest Cedex 9, France

    Christophe Claramunt

  2. Centro de Investigacion en Computacion, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, 07738, Mexico City, Mexico

    Sergei Levashkin

  3. School of Computer Science and Informatics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Michela Bertolotto

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ahlqvist, O. (2011). On the (Limited) Difference between Feature and Geometric Semantic Similarity Models. In: Claramunt, C., Levashkin, S., Bertolotto, M. (eds) GeoSpatial Semantics. GeoS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6631. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20630-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20630-6_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20629-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20630-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics