Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May Yuan - 2002 - Use of A Three-Domain Repesentation To Enhance GIS Support For Complex Spatiotemporal Queries
May Yuan - 2002 - Use of A Three-Domain Repesentation To Enhance GIS Support For Complex Spatiotemporal Queries
Research Article
May Yuan
Department of Geography
University of Oklahoma
Abstract
As the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) proceeds to advanced
scientific and societal applications, there is an emerging need to enhance GIS support
for complex spatiotemporal queries. Dynamic GIS representations (as opposed to
static, map-based representations) that can integrate proper data elements in the
production of geographic information are required. This paper demonstrates the use
of a three-domain representation that facilitates compilation of higher-level
information (such as frequency and rate) from preliminary data records (such as
time and location) stored in a database. The three-domain representation is
compared with snapshot, space-time composite, and spatiotemporal object models
using a sample data set for forest transitions. While the three-domain representation
is a normalization of these data models, it offers a conceptual alternative that enables
GIS to represent spatiotemporal behaviors of geographic entities, in addition to
entities as well as histories at locations as emphasized in most GIS data models. The
comparison shows that the three-domain representation has combined the strengths
of the space-time composite and spatiotemporal object models. Moreover, it enables
aggregations of analytical use along with dynamic mappings between geographic
concepts and locations, a distinct capability that takes GIS query processing beyond
the level of information support offered by static map-based data models.
1 Introduction
ß 1999 Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
138 May Yuan
and information computing. The foundation for a GIS to provide an adequate query
support lies in the design of data models and algorithms (Worboys et al 1990). A data
model is the conceptual core of an information system; it defines data object types,
object relationships, operations, and rules to maintain database integrity (Codd 1980).
In particular, a scheme used to define data object types and object relationships is `a
representation,' which delineates information that is describable and deductible
through the subsequent design of GIS algorithms. The advantages and disadvantages of
a representation have profound influences on what information can be represented and
computed in an information system. Moreover, the design of GIS representations will
affect the difficulty of handling geographic complexity, scale differences,
generalization, and accuracy (Burrough and Frank 1995). Improvements in
representations can significantly enhance the usefulness of GIS to interactive queries
and modeling support of a GIS (Goodchild 1992).
Support for geographic information queries is one of the primary GIS functions.
The degree to which a GIS can support spatiotemporal queries depends upon its
embedded representations. While simple spatiotemporal queries only search stored
data records, complex spatiotemporal queries need a representation to handle the
distributions of objects and events in space and time and thereby discover higher-level
information buried in GIS data records. Most GIS data models support simple
spatiotemporal queries, but their support for complex queries is limited. The goal of
this paper is to demonstrate a representation that can enhance GIS support for complex
spatiotemporal queries. In Section 2, several types of spatiotemporal queries are
discussed with reference to a sample data set to characterize the basic query types that a
GIS representation needs to support for information discovery. In Section 3, a three-
domain representation (Yuan 1996) is applied to unveil spatiotemporal information
embedded in the sample data set. In Section 4, the benefits of using a three-domain
model to represent forest transitions are illustrated through a comparison with other
data models. Key arguments and ideas are summarized in Section 5.
Geographic information queries ask what, where, and when questions with reference
to geographic properties, spatiality, temporality, and the interactions between
geographic entities (cf Langran 1991, Peuquet 1994). These queries can be categorized
using an example of forest transitions with three geographic entities: old growth, clear-
cut, and fire-burn patches (Figure 1). From 1600 to 1960, the boundaries of the
geographic entities varied due to clear-cutting, burns, and the addition of new old-
growth patches. Areas of clear-cuts expanded significantly from the south, while
several fires occurred inside the old growth. On many occasions, these geographic
entities appeared at more than one location; they were aggregations of spatial patches.
While the data set is small, the amount of spatiotemporal information embedded in the
data is rich. In particular, the sample data include information about movements of
boundaries and aggregations of spatial objects. The dynamic nature of the embedded
information challenges conventional static map-based representations to support
complex spatiotemporal queries that require extracting higher-level information from
preliminary GIS data records. This study categorizes the following four types of
spatiotemporal queries to provide a systematic means to acquire information implicit
Figure 1 Sample forest transitions in space and time. The example includes
spatiotemporal constructs about change (e.g. change of land-cover types), aggregation
(e.g. incremental expansion of clear-cut area by adding new cuts), and movement (e.g.
movement of clear-cut boundaries).
in a GIS database: (1) queries about attributes of entities, (2) queries about locations,
spatial properties, and spatial relationships, (3) queries about time, temporal
properties, and temporal relationships, and (4) queries about spatiotemporal behaviors
and relationships.
1987). In this paper, semantic information has two aspects: (1) contextual information
about components of the world, and (2) attribute information of these components.
Contextual information is domain dependent; in that discernable components
(including features, entities, events, or processes) and their attributes can vary with
user views. For example, farmers and engineers apply different criteria to characterize
the usefulness of soils. Information scientists have developed methods to capture a
diverse range of semantics and still preserve the integrity of a database. Commonly
used methods include entity-relationship analysis (Chen 1976), conceptual structuring
(Sowa 1984), semantic modeling (Hull and King 1987, Morehouse 1990), schema and
view integration (Nyerges 1991), and object-oriented analysis (Coleman et al 1994).
These methods have been applied to model semantic relationships, resolve user views,
and facilitate data sharing in building databases. Query about semantic information
has been the primary utility in DBMS via development of relational and object-oriented
data models with correspondent query languages (cf Date 1995).
added here to include questions like `In which year did we have the largest area of
clear-cuts converting to old-growth cover from 1600 to 1950?' A simple search and
arithmetic computation can be performed on the data records in the table that includes
areas of old-growth forests for given years to reveal the changes to old growth during
the period of interest (Table 1). Challenges arise when area measurements are
unavailable and, hence, computations are required to resolve interactions among
geographic entities in both space and time. Capabilities to manage interactions between
spatial and temporal information components are pre-requisites for GIS support of
spatiotemporal queries.
Support for spatiotemporal queries is at the heart of developing a temporal GIS that
will facilitate understanding and modeling of the dynamic geographic world. Langran
(1992b) characterized spatiotemporal queries as `simple spatiotemporal queries' (e.g.
what is the state of a region at time t?) and `spatiotemporal range queries' (e.g. what
happens to a region over a period?). A simple spatiotemporal query seeks information
about a state at a given time, such as `Where were the old-growth patches in 1800?'
Answers to this type of query are snapshots of an area. Comparatively, a
spatiotemporal range query asks questions about the history of a region over time,
such as `How did the land-cover composition change in the area from 1600 to 1800?
(Figures 1a±c)'. Responses can be a loop of snapshots with tables describing changes at
locations in the area.
Complementary to Langran's two types of spatiotemporal queries that only look
for static information of histories at locations, this study also adds `spatiotemporal
behavior queries' to stress the need for dynamic information describing behaviors of
events and processes. Despite the importance of handling events and processes in a
temporal GIS (Peuquet 1994), current GISs lack methods to support queries about
dynamic characteristics of geographic entities, such as frequency of fire occurrences,
expansion of clear-cuts, and rate of decrease in old growth coverage. This type of query
requires tracing the evolution of a given entity, i.e. to follow an entity in space and time
and aggregate summaries of correspondent GIS data spatially and temporally. This is
relatively simple in aspatial databases since every entity is represented by the same data
object with a persistent identifier throughout the course of the entity's existence. In a
GIS, however, changes can occur to both semantic and spatial characteristics. As a
result, identities of geographic meanings and spatial representations are likely to vary
throughout the evolution of a GIS database. A space may continue being fragmented
when change overlaps in space and time. Subsequently, spatial object identifiers will
also change via the fragmentation. Over time, a GIS database has a different set of
spatial objects with new identifiers to represent the entity. Although abilities to
maintain persistent spatial object identifiers in representing an entity are one of the
primary issues in the development of a temporal GIS (Langran 1992a, Peuquet and
Duan 1995, Raper and Livingstone 1995), many GIS data models fail to provide this
important function. Hence, a GIS with data of area burnt by multiple fire events cannot
easily answer queries like `When and where did the fire events reach their maximal rate
of spread?' Later, it will be shown that a three-domain representation can maintain
persistent identifiers for spatial objects (Section 3) and incorporate computational
procedures to solve a sample query of this type through computation of a change
matrix (Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
Numerous spatiotemporal representations or indexing schemes have been
proposed in the GIS literature (see Abraham and Roddick 1996 for details), though
all have a certain degree of difficulty in supporting complex spatiotemporal queries.
Parallel to the aforementioned three time-stamping relational database approaches
(Table 1 and Section 2.3), temporal information has been incorporated into GIS data
models by time-stamping layers (the snapshot models, Figure 3a, Armstrong 1988),
attributes (space-time composites, Figure 3b, Langran and Chrisman 1988), and spatial
objects (spatiotemporal objects, Figure 3c, Worboys 1992). Armstrong's (1988)
snapshot model has problems supporting questions about fire frequency when more
than 50 snapshots need to be overlaid. Langran and Chrisman's (1988) space-time
composite model can support the computation of frequency; however, it encounters
two major problems with information computing. First, the model provides
unidirectional mappings from space-time composites to time and semantics (i.e.
geographic meanings of these space-time composites) because information has to be
associated with spatial representations of space-time composites. As long as locations
are disjoint, the space-time composite model represents them with two distinct records,
even if the two locations are footprints of the same process. This result causes
difficulties when supporting complex semantics- and time-based queries, such as `How
did the rate of spread of fire A change from t1 to t2?' The second major problem of the
space-time composite model is the need for re-structuring space-time composites when
new spatiotemporal information overlaps with the existing space-time composites
(Langran and Chrisman 1988, Langran 1992a), which results in spatial objects without
persistent identifiers.
The spatiotemporal object model proposed by Worboys (1992) is a three-
dimensional version of the space-time composite model, but it is able to maintain
persistent object identifiers by stacking additional spatiotemporal objects on the top of
existing ones instead of overlaying them to resolve new sets of space-time composites
(cf Figure 3c). Yet, the spatiotemporal model sill encounters problems of unidirectional
mappings from spatiotemporal objects to semantic information in that information has
to be directly or indirectly related to spatiotemporal atoms. Hence, information cannot
be recorded unless it is associated with both space and time. However, many kinds of
information are non-spatial, such as vegetation taxonomies or relationships between
fire behavior and fuel contents. In addition, unidirectional mappings from space (or
space and time) to semantics also constrain support for queries about spatiotemporal
behaviors of events or processes because information has to be tied to locations and
therefore is unable to represent motion and processes (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3 for
further discussion of these issues).
Peuquet and Duan's (1995) event-based spatiotemporal data model (ESTDM) and
Raper and Livingstone's (1995) OOgeomorph support the mappings from semantic to
spatial objects, but these models are specifically designed for cell- and point-based
representations, respectively. While the raster-based model, ESTDM, outperforms the
4 A1 P1 1 1 1
6 A2 P2 1 2 2
8 A3 P3 2 2 3
9 A4 P4 3 2 4
10 A5 P5 1 3 5
11 A6 P6 2 3 3, 6
12 A7 P7 1 4 7, 10
13 A8 P8 4 4 8, 9
14 A9 P9 1 5 10, 11, 13
15 A10 P10 2 5 6, 12
3 5 4, 14, 15
(i.e. a layer with a set of geographic objects as used in SmallWorld). Aggregated spatial
objects are excluded from the space table, but they can be derived by tracing the spatial
graph. For example, the spatial graph shows that spatial object 3 is an aggregation of
spatial objects 11 and 12. The object's geometrical and topological properties can be
computed based on its component objects 11 and 12. The structure of aggregate and
simple spatial objects enables representations of disjoint as well as overlapping entities
in a GIS. The aggregation is similar to the concepts of Dynamic Segmentation and
Regions in ARC/INFO GIS, but the spatial graph's ability to: (1) map locations to
semantic objects with both persistent spatial object identifiers, and (2) maintain
transitions among spatial objects distinguishes the spatial domain from these other two
spatial data models.
Figure 5 Transitions in a spatial domain, and a spatial graph. Only the latest spatial
configuration at T5 is stored in the spatial domain. The spatial graph is used to represent
transitions among spatial objects from T1 to T5. Shaded leaves represent spatial objects in
the latest spatial configuration and are included in its correspondent space table (Table
2c). The transitional configurations (T1 to T4) can be deduced from relationships of spatial
objects encoded in the spatial graph.
All five prominent spatiotemporal representations discussed (Section 2.4) have distinct
strengths in spatiotemporal information modeling, but they, like the three-domain
representation, also have limitations. The following comparison aims to evaluate their
support for complex queries on higher-level information because all of them can handle
simple queries. In contrast to simple queries that retrieve data records stored in a
database, complex queries require computation (including aggregation and
decomposition) based on stored data records to produce higher-level information.
The comparison excludes ESTDM and OOgeomorph because of their constraints on
specific data structures (Section 2.4). Hence, the following sections compare the three-
domain representation with snapshots, space-time composites, and spatiotemporal
objects using the sample forest transitions.
Procedures Results
Figure 6 Procedures to compute the largest burn in the database based on the three
domain representation of the sample forest transitions (Table 2).
Because the number of spatial objects with fire burns is much less than the total
number of spatial objects across all snapshots, an increase in temporal data (years of
forest transitions) has much less impact on the search time.
Figure 7 Use of Space-Time Composite Model (Langran and Chrisman 1988) to represent
spatiotemporal information about the sample forest transitions. The polygon IDs in
parentheses are identical to the space IDs in Figure 5e and Table 2c&d for comparison
with the three-domain model.
Comparatively, the three-domain model supports queries about the rate of change
in a spatial coverage of clear-cuts from 1600 to 1950 (Figure 8). Based on this database,
there was no clear-cut until 1700 in this area. After 1700, R1 and R2 are computed for
the rates of areal changes in clear-cuts from 1700 to 1800 (T2 to T3) and 1800 to 1950
(T3 to T4), respectively. The sample query illustrates the fundamental difference
between the three-domain model and the space-time composite model beyond simple
normalization. The difference in query support is due to the separation of semantic,
spatial, and temporal information in the three-domain model. The separation enables
information access by specifying criteria of semantics, space, or time. While simple
spatial objects in the `latest spatial configuration' (Figure 5e) are identical to the spatial
representation in the space-time composite model (Figure 7), these simple spatial
objects are not used to define histories as they are in the space-time model. Instead, the
three-domain model links spatial and temporal objects to semantic objects to represent
histories at locations. Alternatively, the model links semantic and temporal objects to
spatial objects to describe spatiotemporal behaviors of a geographic process. The
spatial graph enables the domain link table to provide direct and persistent mappings
between semantics and space at all times; for example, the record of a clear-cut at
location 3 in 1700 remains unchanged regardless of how the space may be further
fragmented in a later time. Therefore, the model is able to represent overlapping
entities by having two entities linked to aggregate spatial objects that share common
simple spatial objects. The model can also represent a spatially disjoint entity by
Procedures Results
(7) Calculate
Rate (Area(Sum(A11, A12), Sum(A3, A6)) Time (Time(2), Time(3)) = R1
Rate (Area(Sum(A3, A6), Sum(A8, A9)) Time (Time(3), Time(4)) = R2
Functions
Area (SemID, TimeID): function that aggregates area of spatial objects associated with the
specified SemID and TimeID in a domain-link table.
Sum (X1, X2, . . .): function that calculates addition of enclosed values (X1, X2, etc.).
Time (x, y): function that calculates the difference between time x and time y based on
records in a time table, including necessary transformation of time units.
Area (x, y): function that calculates the difference between time x and time y based on
records in a space table, including necessary transformation of areal units.
Rate (x, y): function that calculates the rate of x over y.
Figure 8 Procedures to compute the rate of change in clear-cuts from 1600 to 1950 in
the database based on the three-domain representation of the sample forest transitions
(Table 2).
linking the entity to two separate spatial objects. Likewise, the mappings allow
retrieval of all burns occurring at a location to support queries about histories at
locations as supported by the space-time composite model.
1 A! [1600±1700] Old-growth 1
2 A2 [1700±1800] Old-growth 1
3 A3 [1700±1950] Clear-cut 2
4 A4 [1700±1960] Burn 3
5 A5 [1800±1960] Old-growth 1
6 A6 [1950±1960] Clear-cut 4
7 A7 [1950±1960] Old-growth 1
8 A8 [1950±1960] Clear-cut 2
9 A9 [1950±1960] Clear-cut 4
10 A10 [1950±1960] Old-growth 1
11 A11 [1960±1960] Old-growth 1
12 A12 [1960±1960] Clear-cut 2
13 A13 [1960±1960] Old-growth 1
14 A14 [1960±1960] Burn 5
15 A15 [1960±1960] Burn 6
Procedures Results
Functions
Parent (X1, X2, . . .): function that traces a spatial graph to retrieve parent objects of X1, X2, etc.
Child (X1, X2, . . .): function that traces a spatial graph to retrieve parent objects of X1, X2, etc.
Figure 10 Procedures to compute the area that has changed from clear-cut to old-
growth forest in the last 100 years as asked in 1997.
of selected objects, temporal overlay of their associated life span, and determination of
which area has attributes of clear-cuts before old growth.
Computation of the requested information is comparably straightforward using
the three-domain model (Figure 10). The search starts by identifying semantic objects
representing old-growth or clear-cut patches in the semantics table (Table 2a) and
temporal objects that represent a later time than 1897 (= 1997±100) in the time table
(Table 2b). The remaining question becomes `find all spatial objects that are: (1) linked
to selected temporal objects and semantic objects of old-growth in the domain link
table (Table 2d); and (2) linked to spatial objects associated with the semantic object of
old-growth in the spatial graph (Figure 5e).' As a result, the search resolves that spatial
object 11 was a clear-cut in 1800 (as part of spatial object 3 with temporal object 3), but
it became an old-growth area in 1960 (temporal object 5). According to the database,
spatial object 11 is the only location fulfilling the search criteria.
5 Conclusions
This study has categorized the basic types of spatiotemporal queries and applied a
three-domain framework to facilitate these queries. It has also compared the
framework with other prominent spatiotemporal representations in GIS. The three-
domain representation consists of both semantic associations and transitions among
spatial objects, so that it provides bi-directional mappings to enable both entity-based
and location-based query processing.
With the bi-directional mappings, the three-domain representation combines
advantages from the space-time composite and spatiotemporal object models. Both the
three-domain and spatiotemporal object models incorporate semantic associations to
aggregate spatial objects with the same geographic meaning (semantics). The three-
domain representation uses domain links to associate spatial objects with the same
properties in a snapshot regardless of their spatial adjacency. Similarly, the
spatiotemporal object model uses the atom-object structure to combine spatiotemporal
atoms to facilitate queries about geographic entities. Without semantic association, the
space-time composite model is unable to support entity-based queries, as discussed in
Section 4.2. In contrast, both the three-domain and space-time composite models
maintain spatial transitions of locational properties. While the three-domain model
holds the transitions in a spatial graph with domain links to semantic objects
describing geographic meanings at locations, the space-time composite model records
locational histories at the largest, homogeneous spatial units. Therefore, both models
support queries about changes at locations. Without transitions among spatial objects,
the spatiotemporal object model does not support queries about histories at locations,
as illustrated by the sample query in Section 4.3. Because the snapshot model lacks both
semantic associations and transitions among spatial objects, its capability to support
complex spatiotemporal query is the most limited. Moreover, the three-domain model
is able to represent spatially distributed features (eg discrete forest patches), processes
(eg storms), and movement (eg spread of a fire) using links among semantic, temporal,
and spatial objects. The dynamic nature of the three-domain representation
distinguishes the model from other spatiotemporal representations in GIS.
This study has demonstrated the ability of the three-domain model to improve GIS
query processing with conventional SQL structures. Such query support is critical for a
GIS to provide information for scientific analysis and modeling. Hitherto, query
processing and optimization for GIS databases has been relatively underdeveloped
(Samet and Aref 1995). The three-domain model provides an alternative scheme to
enhance GIS query support through not only technical improvements in data
normalization, but conceptual advancements in both location-based and entity-based
query processing in a dynamic framework.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this project from the National Imagery and Mapping Agency
(NIMA) through the University Research Initiative Grant NMA202-97-1-1024 is
gratefully acknowledged. The author also thanks Dr John Wilson and three
anonymous referees whose comments have significantly improved this paper.
References
Abraham T and Roddick J F 1996 Survey of Spatiotemporal Databases. Adelaide, University of
South Australia, School of Computer and Information Science, Advanced Computing
Research Centre Technical Report CIS-96-011
Allen J F 1983 Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACSM
26: 832±43
Armstrong M P 1988 Temporality in spatial databases. In Proceedings of GIS/LIS'88, 2.
Bethesda, MD, American Congress of Surveying and Mapping: 880±9
Burrough P A and Frank A U 1995 Concepts and paradigms in spatial information: Are current
geographical information systems truly generic? International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems 9: 101±16
Chen P P 1976 The entity-relationship model toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions
on Database Systems 1: 9±38
Codd E F 1980 Data models in database management. In Brodie M L and Zilles S N (eds)
Proceedings of the Workshop on Data Abstraction, Databases, and Conceptual Modeling,
Pingree Park, Colorado, June 23±26 1980: 112±4
Coleman D, Arnold P Bodoff, S, Dollin C, Gilchrist H, Hayes F, and Jeremes P 1994 Object-
Oriented Development: The Fusion Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall
Cowen D J 1988 GIS versus CAD versus DBMS: What are the differences? Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 54: 1551±5
Date C J 1995 An Introduction to Database Systems, 6th edition. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley
Freska C 1992 Temporal reasoning based on semi-intervals. Artificial Intelligence 54: 199±227.
Gadia S K and Vaishnav J H 1985 A query language for a homogeneous temporal database. In
Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems: 51±6
Gadia, S K and Yeung C S 1988 A generalized model for a relational temporal database. In
Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data: 251±9
Goodchild M F 1992 Geographical information science. International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems 6: 31±45
Hull R and King R 1987 Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications, and research issues.
ACM Computing Surveys 19: 201±60
Langran G 1991 Producing answers to spatial questions. In Auto-Carto 10: Technical Papers of
the 1991 ACSM-ASPRS Annual Convention. Bethesda, MD, American Congress of
Surveying and Mapping: 133±47
Langran G 1992a States, events, and evidence: The principle entities of a temporal GIS. In
Proceedings: GIS/LIS'92. Bethesda, MD, American Congress of Surveying and Mapping:
416±25
Langran G 1992b Time in Geographic Information Systems. London, Taylor and Francis
Langran G and Chrisman N R 1988 A framework for temporal geographic information.
Cartographica 25: 1±14
Morehouse S 1990 The role of semantics in geographic data modeling. Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Zurich, Switzerland, 2: 689±98
Nyerges T L 1991 Geographic information abstractions: Conceptual clarity for geographic
modeling. Environment and Planning A, 23: 1483±99
Peuquet D J 1994 It's about time: A conceptual framework for the representation of temporal
dynamics in geographic information systems. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 84: 441±62
Peuquet D J and Duan N 1995 An event-based spatiotemporal data model (ESTDM) for
temporal analysis of geographical data. International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems 9: 7±24
Ozsoyoglu G and Snodgrass R T 1995 Temporal and real-time databases: a survey. IEEE
Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 7: 513±33
Raper J and Livingstone D 1995 Development of a geomorphologic spatial model using object-
oriented design. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9: 359±84
Samet H and Aref W G 1995 Spatial data models and query processing. In Kim W (ed) Modern
Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond. New York, ACM
Press: 338±60
Snodgrass R and Ahn I 1986 Temporal databases. IEEE Computer, September, pp. 35±42
Sowa J F 1984 Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Reading,
MA, Addison-Wesley
Tansel A U, Clifford J, Gadia S, Jajodia S, Segev A, and Snodgrass R (eds) 1993 Temporal
Databases: Theory, Design, and Implementation. Reading, MA, Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing Co
Tomlin C D 1990 Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modeling. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall
Worboys M F 1990 Reasoning about GIS Using Temporal and Dynamic Logics. Santa Barbara,
CA, University of California, National Center for Geographic Informational Analysis
Center Technical Report 90±4
Worboys M F, Hearnshaw H M and Maguire D J 1990. Object-oriented data modeling for
spatial databases. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 4: 369±83
Worboys M F 1992 A model for spatio-temporal information. In Bresnahan P, Corwin E, and
Cowen D (eds) Proceedings: The 5th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, 2.
San Jose, CA, American Congress of Surveying and Mapping: 602±11
Yuan M 1996 Modeling semantic, temporal, and spatial information in geographic information
systems. In Craglia M and Couclelis H (eds) Geographic Information Research: Bringing the
Atlantic. London, Taylor and Francis: 334±47