PRIMITIVES OF SPATIAL KNOWLEDGE

REGINALD G. GOLLEDGE
Department of Geography and
Research Unit in Spatial Cognition and Choice
University of California Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106 USA
email: golledge@geog.ucsb.edu

Abstract. A minimal set of primitives for building sets of spatial concepts is presented.
These are needed for understanding the many GIS being circulated today. Using
primitives of identity, location, magnitude, and time, simple and more complex spatial
concepts can be derived. These ultimately become embedded in spatial language.
Implications for HCI are discussed and the types of interactive mode (e.g., visual, tactile,
auditory) most appropriate in specific HCI contexts are elaborated.

1. Introdnction

The problems of interacting with or conversing with computers using spatial languages
has become a significant research topic. The purpose of this chapter is simply to suggest
that the spatial languages used in a human-computer interaction will have to assume both
a certain fundamental knowledge in the human, and a well-defined and operational set of
equivalent terms in the computer. Here, I address basic research questions of what
comprises a set of spatial primitives, how derivative concepts naturally emerge from
these primi tives, and how well people in general (i.e., non-expert potential users) are
likely to understand the terms without extensive education. I am also interested in exam-
ining the degree to which these primitives lend themselves to expression in visual, tactile,
and auditory form. In other words, I want to raise the question of appropriateness of the
process of matching spatial concepts with computer interaction constraints.
A critical part of many spatial terms selected for computer use is their precision.
Studies of spatial linguistics have clearly indicated that the bulk of natural language
spatial terms, including a very critical set of prepositions, are at best fuzzy (refer to the
National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) Initiative on Spatial
Languages, Mark and Frank [29]). While we can freely admit that terms such as "here,"
"there," "near," "along," "on," "in," and so on, are extremely person-oriented and difficult
to define in an unambiguous way so that they can be readily interpreted by a computer, it
is not as well recognized that many other spatial concepts are also fuzzy. These concepts
are found not only in natural language but in the expert language used by spatially aware
professionals in a variety of disciplines, and abound in the area of geographic information
systems (GIS).
For several thousand years, humanity has been developing technical aids that reduce
reliance on fuzzy human concepts, or increase the precision with which spatial concepts
29
T. L. Nyerges et al. (eds.).
Cognitive Aspects o/Human-Computer Interaction/or Geographic In/ormation Systems. 29-44.
© 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30

can be used by humans. In particular, the sciences of geodesics, surveying, and cartog-
raphy have addressed these questions. Sometimes the need to know has been heavily
influenced by political economy--as in the need to have exact measurements of the size of
land units so that ownership can be established and equitable taxes levied. At times, this
precision has been pursued because of legal problems or for the resolution of conflict at a
variety of different scales--as for establishing exact boundary lines between nations, or
where a fence should be placed between two adjacent privately-owned properties.
Navigational and wayfinding aids such as the compass, the sextant, and indeed, the
cartographic map, are precursors of global positioning systems (GPS) for establishing
accurate location, orientation and direction. The reason why these aids have been
developed is quite simple--humans are notoriously imprecise at judging spatial attributes
and the dimensions of spatial relations. Extensive work in cognitive mapping over the
last two and one-half decades has clearly indicated the variety and magnitude of errors
that are likely to occur in all manner of spatial estimation and reproduction tasks. These
include distance estimation (Golledge et al. [18]; Briggs [1], [2]; Lowery [27]; Curtis et
at. [4]; Evans [10]; Golledge [15]; Montello [32]; Siegel [35]; Golledge et at. [19]), angle
estimation (Moar and Carleton [31]; Moar and Brewer [30]; Hanley and Levine [23]; Da
Silva and Fukusima [6]; Golledge et al. [22]), recognition of appropriate global and local
frames of reference (Dougherty [8]; Garling et at. [14)), errors in estimating and
reproducing distances (Klatzky et al. [25]; Golledge et al. [21]), and errors in cognitive
maps generally (Tversky [36]; Gale [12]; Buttenfield [3)). Despite this rapidly
accumulating volume of evidence about the inaccuracy in spatial concepts and spatial
relations, spatial professionals (including geographers, planners, engineers, designers,
and others) continue to bandy technical terms around as if they are well understood
natural language terms. And, despite the fact that others have offered a basis for
understanding spatial concepts (Nystuen [33]; Papageorgiou [34]; Golledge [16];
Golledge [17]), we do this often in the absence of understanding even the most basic
spatial primitives. We do this without really knowing how error accumulates as spatial
primitives are joined or as spatial derivatives are deduced from spatial primi tives. We do
this without fully understanding that our fuzzy and error-ridlen concepts might be
inappropriately transferred to the exact and precise domain of the computer. While not
suggesting that all spatial concepts are inadequately defined in human-computer
interactions, I do believe there is sufficient lack of understanding and hence potential for
misinterpretation or misrepresentation of spatial terms, that it has become essential for us
to reexamine our spatial roots. By doing this, we can obtain the essence of common
understanding and hopefully can increase our precision when communicating with
devices such as a computer, regardless of whether the interface device is tied to visual,
tactile, auditory sensors or some combinations of each. What follows is an attempt to
identify some spatial primitives, discuss how their interpretations can vary substantially
as intent, context, and scale vary, and to heighten our professional awareness of the
problems that have to be faced in developing a human-computer interaction process that
is normal, natural, and easily accessible by many users, rather than being technical,
expert, and available only to specially trained individuals.