=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2088/paper3
|storemode=property
|title=Place-based GIS: Functional Space
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2088/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2088
|authors=Emmanuel Papadakis,Thomas Blaschke,Vuokko Heikinheimo,Hoda Allahbakhshi,Robert Weibel,Weiming Huang,Ali Mansourian,Lars Harrie,Sebastian Hunger,Azimjon Sayidov,Robert Weibel,Kiran Zahra
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/agile/Papadakis17
}}
==Place-based GIS: Functional Space==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2088/paper3.pdf
Place-based GIS: Functional Space
Emmanuel Papadakis Thomas Blaschke
Dept. of Geoinformatics – Z_GIS Dept. of Geoinformatics – Z_GIS
University of Salzburg University of Salzburg
Schillerstraße 30 Schillerstraße 30
Salzburg, Austria Salzburg, Austria
emmanouil.papadakis@stud.sbg.ac.at thomas.blaschke@sbg.ac.at
Abstract
Place-based GIS allow digital systems to provide a human-centred representation of the geographic world, by complementing traditional
spatial representations with the notion of human meaning. An emerging question of such an integration and hence digitization is the level of
formalization and generalization that the human meaning can undergo, along with the pragmatic value of associating informal and vague
constructs with the formal and precise environment of a Geographic Information System. We propose a function-based model of place,
which depicts place as a space ascribed with functionality. The model treats place as a topological graph of spatial entities that enables a set
of functions, which in return define functional spaces. Furthermore, utilizing the idea of functional space we suggest a practical application
of a Place-based GIS, such as function-based search of space, that is demonstrated using the example of a shopping area. Future research
includes the extension of the model by associating place with purposes and emotions, automated generation of composition patterns of place
and extraction of function-based data.
Keywords: Place, Space, Functions, GIS
1 Introduction continues with a brief literature review of the existing
methods that associate space with place. Afterwards, a
A geographic information system (abbr. GIS) represents definition of place is given that is derived from the theory of
geographic information utilizing various forms of data the Object of Discourse [2] followed by a demonstrating
structures. From “a puzzle of polygons to a sandwich of data example. Finally, we provide some concluding remarks along
layers” [3], every method creates a formal, objective and with potential directions of future work.
precise [5] view of the geographic world, known as
mathematical space [1] or just space. On the other hand,
geographical space as it is perceived by humans refers to the 2 Background – Related work
intuitive, unanalyzed and unarticulated spatial understanding
[1]. Driven by the perception, humans refer to space as an The academic definition of the concept of place is a research
informal, subjective, vague and structure-less view of the problem that has puzzled scientists for many years. Relph [9]
world, known as experiential space [5], or simply place. The construes place as a unique pattern of physical features,
place-based GIS is an attempt to bridge these two extreme appearances, activities and functions. Its unique quality is the
views of the geographic world. It attempts to incorporate the power to focus on human intentions, experiences and actions
human perception of the geographical world within digital in the spatial dimension. Curry [4] describes place as a notion
systems enabling the formalization and association of place free of natural boundaries. More specifically, space existed
with the mathematical space. long before people were there, whereas place is a location
This integration forces researchers to focus on the essential shaped and formed by the human mind. Consequently, places
difference between space and place. It stems from the intuitive are human inventions to describe space. Tuan [11] plausibly
mental ability of creating symbols by ascribing meaning to the claimed that “place is space infused with human meaning”.
physical constructs. With respect to our discussion about Since human meaning is broad, purely subjective and
space, humans create symbols, which are the places, to assign disruptively vague, any attempt of formalizing it, should be
context to space. The main research question that emerges compliant to reasonable abstractions. These facilitate the
focuses on the limitations of formalizing the context of space. distinction of indicators that outline the human meaning from
Particularly, which parts of the human context ascribed to those that are not worthy of modelling and determine whether
space facilitate generalization and allow formalization; inter-subjectivity can be applied. Adhering to such
furthermore, what is the pragmatic value of such an abstractions facilitates the declarative formalization of
integration within GIS, in terms of practical applications and meaning. This simplified version of meaning is referred to as
solutions. This work proposes a multidimensional definition context of space and affords semantics representation.
of place as functional space and suggests a pragmatic There are two notable directions when conceptualizing and
application that utilize the gradual transition from human formalizing place: either infusing spatial representations with
context to pure spatial representations displayable in GIS semantics or projecting semantics on space. A leading
platforms. approach of augmenting space with semantics is the
The rest of this document is organized as follows. The next objectification of space [10]. According to this, spatial
section introduces the leading definitions of place and
AGILE 2016 – Helsinki, June 14-17, 2016
structures are converted into sophisticated objects with operate as a system, rather than following affordances-driven
ascribed properties, attributing a context to them. questions such as how the place can be interacted with, which
In the opposite way, digital gazetteers [5] offer a linkage entails individual spatial perception. It is worth noting that
between place names and semantics to spatiotemporal functionality expresses only a subset of spatial contexts.
footprints. This approach is usually extended with semantic Places can be more complicated when they are related to
enrichment resulting to ontology-based gazetteers or emotions, experiences and so on. For that reason, we list the
ontologies equipped with properties that lead to spatial following assumptions: the proposed model represents only
descriptions. For instance, CIDOC CRM is an upper level places that exist in the real world, are marked by human
ontology that defines place as a qualitative spatial description intervention and are designed for certain goals.
of semantic-driven entities, such as events. A place entity is The next challenge that arises is the encapsulation of the
identified by a representative place name and provides the context of place (that is, functionality) in a system of entities
intermediate (human-friendly) node between events and their that affords realization and spatial representation. This is
spatial projection. Finally, the affordance-based model of addressed by following the principles of the object of
place [6] focuses on annotating space with context derived discourse based on which, functions are enabled by a
from people’s actions. Particularly, space, expressed as a set particular spatial organization. Our approach follows this idea
of affordances, is imbued with meaning expressing the ability by introducing the composition of place. More specifically,
to serve human intentionality on achieving a final goal. composition suggests a network-based view of place. Every
Most of the aforementioned methods do not fully utilize the vertex is considered as an entity, denoted as component, and
expressive power of place. The first three methods associate every edge resembles possible associations between
space with simple semantics, in the sense of properties, which components. The components depict physical entities with
does not always reflect the given human context. On the other ascribed properties and rules that offer a generalized
hand, the affordance-based model sufficiently approximates description of their potential geometry. The components are
the context of place. However, affordances are perception- associated with spatial relations revealing a possible topology.
centric and provide limited and individual-driven knowledge. This topology implies a spatial organization that enables the
This limits the model's capabilities on defining whether space functions of the modelled place to be offered.
affords a final goal, which, in turn, impedes the model’s The final challenge that needs to be addressed is the
operationalization. projection of place on space. This can be addressed by
utilizing the dual nature of the composition of place that was
described above. With respect to the object of discourse, the
3 Methodology – Demonstration level of properties realizes a composition by assigning values
and creating a tangible representation of the individual object
The objective of this work is to propose a model that on space. Particularly, the composition of a place is regarded
facilitates an adequate conceptualization of place, which as a blueprint. This includes descriptions of required and
allows its representation using a rigid, digital alphabet. This optional components along with their topological rules that
consequently allows the integration of place into GIS enable the functions, which form the context of the place
platforms. Considering the complexity of the problem, the under consideration. Since the components are equipped with
initial research question is analysed into several coarse- their geometrical descriptions, they can be populated with real
grained challenges. Before listing and addressing the data and spatial objects. As long as these components are
individual challenges, a brief introduction of the theory about spatially organized based on the composition rules, it is then
the object of discourse is provided, which is the basis of the possible to assign the initial context on space and hence
proposed approach. project the place itself on space.
An object of discourse is “whatever people can talk about Considering all the above, we propose a multi-faceted
regardless of its nature” [2]. Since place is a product of human definition of place incorporating the dimensions of spatial
thinking, it can be rightfully considered as an object of properties, composition and functions. The dimension of
discourse. Hence, a place is described by four levels of spatial properties describes place as a semantically enriched
semantic resolution, inherited by the definition of the object of spatial object with ascribed properties and geometry-related
discourse, as follows. A place serves one or more purposes. information. The dimension of composition describes place as
These purposes are supported by the functions the place a system in the sense of a topology network. This graph-
provides. A composition, in the sense of spatial organization, oriented representation resembles the spatial organization of
enables the aforementioned functions and finally, the the components that constitute a place. Finally, the dimension
composition pattern introduces a set of properties that realize of functions provides a sense of context by depicting the set of
the place under consideration. operations that a place can offer.
The most crucial challenge when it comes to place For the proposed model to support domain independence, its
modelling is the conceptualization of the spatial context. formalization should be flexible, reusable and extensible. This
Inspired by the argument that place is an object of discourse, can be achieved via an ontology design pattern [8], which
we address this by assuming place is space that offers treats the model of place as a self-contained building block
particular functionality. This allows a more sophisticated and able to be integrated into other ontologies. A concise version
formalizable view of the spatial context that goes beyond of the ontology is shown in Figure 1. There are two notable
simple properties, such as names or attributes. In addition, operations that this model of place can offer: (a) projection of
functions allow operationalization by facilitating objectivity. functional context on space and (b) infusion of space with
They provide an inter-subjective understanding on how places functional context. Each operation depends on the information
AGILE 2016 – Helsinki, June 14-17, 2016
flow, either following a top-down approach and moving from components from semantically poor information such as
functions to spatial properties or adapting a bottom-up remote sensing data and so on. In addition, we examine the
procedure from spatial properties towards functions. These possibility of extending the spatial relations between the
operations are denoted as spatial design and functional components of a place by including mereological association,
infusion, respectively. A graphical representation of both in order to describe part-of dependencies between them.
procedures is illustrated in Figure 2, using the example of a
shopping centre. Figure 3: Function-based search shopping center (left) and
The composition pattern of the shopping centre (Figure 2a) Google Maps search “shopping center” (right).
is used for the functional infusion of an area in Santa Barbara
County. Particularly, this example demonstrates the search of
place and specifically the function-based search of space. The
objective is to locate all places that offer the functions of a
shopping centre using OpenStreetMap data. Figure 3 shows
the results of the procedure along with the corresponding
query of “shopping centre” using the Google Maps platform.
There is a satisfying similarity between the two result sets.
However, as opposed to the traditional place name search, the
functional infusion includes all places that adhere to the same
rules, even if they are not registered as shopping centres. As a 4 Conclusion
result, there are places that are not included in the results of
the Google Maps query, such as the area close to the
Assuming that place is a space that offers functionality, we
University Campus and the place “The Shop”. In addition,
propose an ontological model of place that complies to the
functional infusion is not limited to locating a place but also
theory of the object of discourse. This model defines places
provides an estimation of its spatial extent.
using the dimensions of spatial properties, composition and
functions. Particularly, a place offers a set of functions that
Figure 1: Model of Place.
are enabled by a set of components that adhere to a particular
topology, which in turn is realized by spatial properties. This
model introduces two fundamental procedures: the extraction
of spatial patterns, known as spatial design and the infusion of
space with a functional context. Finally, we demonstrate the
spatial design of a shopping centre followed by a function-
based search of shopping places at the area of the Santa
Barbara County.
An interesting direction of future work is the extension of
the model of place to the planes of intentionality and
emotions. More practical future directions include the
automation of the following tasks: (a) acquisition of function-
based data; (b) extraction of functions based on purposes that
Figure 2: Procedures of functional space model. people assign to places; (c) extraction of place composition
patterns based on a set of functions.
Acknowledgements
The presented work is framed within the Doctoral College
GIScience (DK W 1237N23), funded by the Austrian Science
Fund (FWF)
References
[1] H. Couclelis. Location, place, region, and space.
Geography’s inner worlds, 2:215-233, Rutgers
The current state of this work focuses on the detailed University Press, New Jersey, 1992.
formalization and evaluation of the dimension of composition. [2] H. Couclelis. Ontologies of geographic information.
Particularly, we emphasize on specializing the components’ International Journal of Geographical Information
geometric descriptors by including features such as scale, Science, 24(12):1785–1809, 2010.
fuzzy boundaries and image schemas [7]. The idea behind this [3] H. Couclelis. People manipulate objects (but cultivate
is the potentiality of unsupervised functional infusion using fields): Beyond the Raster-Vector Debate in GIS.
recurring structures and patterns in order to categorize
AGILE 2016 – Helsinki, June 14-17, 2016
Theories and Methods of Spatiotemporal Reasoning in [7] W. Kuhn. An Image-Schematic Account of Spatial
Geographic Space, 639(716):65–77, 1992. Categories. In S. Winter, M. Duckham, L. Kulik and B.
[4] R. M. Curry. The work in the world: geographical Kuipers, editors, Spatial Information Theory, pages 152–
practice and the written word. Environment and Planning 168, 2007.
A, 30(6):1137–1138, 1998. [8] V. Presutti and A. Gangemi. Content Ontology Design
[5] M. F. Goodchild. Formalizing Place in Geographic Patterns as Practical Building Blocks forWeb Ontologies.
Information Systems. In L. M. Burton, S. A. Matthews, In Q. Li, S. Spaccapietra, E. Yu and A. Olive, editors,
M. Leung, S. P. Kemp and D. T. Takeuchi, editors, Conceptual Modelling - ER 2008, pages 128–141, 2008.
Communities, Neighborhoods, and Health, pages 21-33 [9] D. Seamon and J. Sowers. Place and placelessness
Springer New York, 2011. (1976): Edward Relph. In Key Texts in Human
[6] T. Jordan, M. Raubal, B. Gartrell, and M. Egenhofer. An Geography, pages 43–52, 2008.
affordance-based model of place in GIS. 8th Int. [10] B. Smith and D. M. Mark. Do mountains exist? Towards
Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, SDH, an ontology of landforms. Environment and Planning B:
98(July):98–109, 1998. Planning and Design, 30(3):411–427, 2003.
[11] Y.-F. Tuan. Space and Place: The Perspective of
Experience, University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
AGILE 2016 – Helsinki, June 14-17, 2016