A CARTO-LINGUISTIC PARADIGM TAKING A METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Transcription

1 A CARTO-LINGUISTIC PARADIGM TAKING A METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Du, Q. School of Resource and Environmental Science, Wuhan University, 129 Luoyu Rd., Wuhan, P. R. China. qydu@telecarto.com ABSTRACT Geographic information is the most important component of the human cognition of reality, which is traditionally represented by map. Besides verbal language and music, map is regarded as the third language for human beings communication. In this paper, the author argues that the theory of map language can further provide Geographic Information System with discipline paradigm and corresponding conceptual model while traditional map theories of cognition, communication and language have been providing a sound theoretical foundation for Cartography, and a completed descriptive structure of geographic information based linguistic paradigm is proposed in this paper. 1. INTRODUCTION Linguistic paradigm is not new in geographic information related disciplines. The most important one is map language theory that stemmed from Bertin s retinal variables (Bertin, 1967) and one of the three most popular cartographic theories. Map language paradigm regards map either as analog of natural language or semiotic system, by which the association of content and express or referent, communication and interpreter is investigated (Schlichtmann, , Head, 1999). The main concern of this approach is for the conceptual model of map and its digital form (Schlichtmann, 1999). Another approach of linguistic paradigm is from the viewpoint of cognition which stemmed back from Russell s idea; the structure of language corresponds somehow to the structure of objective world. The typical example of this approach is what was carried forward by the initiative 2 of NCGIA, linguistic aspect of spatial relations (Mark, ; Frank & Mark, 1991; Egenhofer, 1998). There is also the third approach, which is still popular in the disciplines such as pattern recognition and digital image processing and its descendent in cartography and GIS (Youngmann, 1978; Taketa, 1979; Nyerges, 1991; Du, ), which is more from the methodological perspective. Although linguistic paradigms are widely accepted in the geographic information related circle, a genuine linguistics oriented total investigation is absent, especially from the viewpoint of microcosmic level. The research of linguistic paradigm in this paper is from the concern with methodology and in microcosmic level, which regards the representation of geographic information as the analogy of natural language for the construct of the phonetic, semantic and syntactic theory of geographic information as a two-dimensional graphic language. These linguistic principles tell us how to construct a linguistic system, which embedded with widely utilized linguistic terminology such as first of all Phonetics, Semantics, Lexics and Syntax, and is composed of a more complicated internal structure in each element and component. 2. PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY In Linguistics, Phonetics deals with the physical characteristics of language, which is the sound in verbal language and stroke of character in writing language. In graphic representation of geographic information, then physical characteristics are carried by graphic ink stroke, rather than sound, thus research of the physical characteristic of graphics becomes the phonetic analysis of spatial information language Physical characteristics of the geographic information In theoretical cartography, the concern with the physical characteristics of map began with Bertin s retinal variable theory. Many map semiotic and linguistic scholars regard retinal variable as the minimal distinct feature of map symbols. Proceedings of the 21 st International Cartographic Conference (ICC) Durban, South Africa, August 2003 Cartographic Renaissance Hosted by The International Cartographic Association (ICA) ISBN: Produced by: Document Transformation Technologies

2 Dimensionality is another physical characteristic of spatial information. Point, line, area and volume are four geometrical components with different dimensions. Among them point is indivisible and the others are extended components which can be divided further. As the representation of geographic reality, the appearance of geographic object is the whole presentation of physical characteristics. In fact the appearance is dominated by three factors which include geographic reality, cognitive regulations and geometric rules. 2.2 Phoneme and Phoneme Combination in Geographic Information Phonetic analysis of language is the analysis of physical characteristics applying linguistic rules. Although geographic reality has continuous distribution over space, humans tend quite generally to discretize the essentially continuous phenomena. The phonetic syncopation based on retinal variables as Distinctive Feature (DF) is the most important procedure in phonetic analysis. There are different syncopation methods stemmed from different disciplines and for different purposes, among which are geometric, psychological syncopation in pattern recognition, mathematic morphology, cartography. Phoneme is the minimal phonetic meaningless element that functions as signaling the distinction of meaning in higher language unit. In geographic information, retinal variables and dimensionality have the potential to act as Distinctive Features to make the phoneme based syncopation. After analysis of eight retinal variables we can find that for phonetic analysis they are still not atomic enough, among which only color, brightness, size and orientation are atomic features. As to dimensionality, point and line segment are in two different dimensions, which can not be further divided (as division of line segment results in line segment again). So point or line segment with variable color, brightness, size and orientation form the phoneme of graphic language system. All other phonetic aspect of linguistic component is the combination of these phonemes. The power of graphic symbol expression comes from the combination of the phonemes, besides allophones of a certain phoneme. The combination of phoneme can result in minimal meaningful unit (morpheme), or still meaningless unit (syllable). In the background of geographic information, phoneme combination is traditionally the domain of map symbolization. 3. SEMANTICS Semantics deals with the meaning of language, which in geographic information the association of geographic information and geographic reality. There are two main semantic theories, one of them is concerned with semantics inside of language system, i. e. how words and sentences are mutually connected, another of them is concerned with semantics outside of language system, i. e. how word and sentence are connected with their referent object and process. 3.1 Component Analysis of Semantics in Geographic Information Component analysis of spatial information is the process to decompose the meaning into semantic features, which is the analysis of internal semantic features reflecting the objective essence by empirical understanding to geographic features and phenomenon. The inner semantic features are independent of concrete language context, and associate with the ontology of reality the words express. So far in Linguistics efficient theory for semantic feature is lacking, empiricism and introspection are two main means. As to geographic information, the corresponding geographic ontology is much confined comparing with reality corresponding natural language. By the means of ontological investigation is an efficient way. Borgo et al.(1996) and Guarino(1997) proposed the concept of Ontological Strata (Fig. 1) for the construction of large scale ontology. Static (a situation) Mereological (an amount of matter) Physical Topological (a piece of matter) Morphological (a cubic block) Functional (an artifact) Biological (a human body) Intentional (a person or a robot) Social (a company) Figure 1. Ontological Strata (Guarino, 1997).

3 Objects have an intensional criterion of identity, in the sense that they are more that mere sums of parts. Within objects, further distinctions can be made according to the identity criteria ascribed to them. As for geographic information, static, biological strata have less influence, mereological and physical strata not only have effect on internal semantic features, and also function over whole structure of semantics. We can extract following category of semantic features:! Matter (mereological): water, soil, clay, stone, sand, vegetable, artificial material etc.! Appearance (morphological): flowing, standing, naturally curved, regular patterned, dimensionality etc.! Size (morphological): large, medium, small etc.! Function (functional): transportation, obstruction, inhabitancy, cumulating, tourism, breeding etc.! Social class (social): political, economic, cultural etc As an example, we can make following decomposition into semantic features of geographic information.! River [water] + [flowing] + [naturally curved] + [transportation] + [linear];! Lake [water] + [standing] + [tourism] + [breeding] + [area];! Highway [artificial material] + [transportation] + [constraint curved] + [linear] + [economic];! Fence [artificial material] + [obstruction] + [regular] + [linear];! Building [artificial material] + [inhabitancy] + [regular appearance] + [area] + [obstruction] + [political and economic meaning]; Of course, using only identifying criteria of everyday world object for geographic entity and phenomenon has its shortage. For geographic concepts such as bay and cape or political boundaries (Smith & Mark, 1998), we still find its semantic features from syntactic framework. 3.2 Structural analysis of Semantics in Geographic Information Structural Semantics adopts implicational-lexical Relation. Its main argument is some words are implicitly associated with others in a language system, so it is a intrinsic issue of language. The meaning of a word is dependent on its position in the lexical system. According the argument, semantic relations fall into four categories, i. E., synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy and antonymy (Buitelaar, 2001) Synonymy Synonymy refers to the same or similar meaning of the words. In the representation of geographic information we use strictly artificial language system. Represented object are classified and upon them the lexical system is prescribed so that strict synonymy does not exist in it. However, if we look closer to the potential lexical system of geographic information (both analog and digital), similar semantics with multiple representation is very common. It includes:! Multiple expression of the same entity: the variation of shape, color, weight result the multiple expression of the same entity.! Multiple expression of the same spatial information: for example, the different expression of the cross of highway Hyponymy Hyponymy refers to also relation of similarity, but on the similarity of class. It is the inclusion of classes. For example, vehicle includes motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle. It can be said that the deep foundation for hyponymy of word is the hierarchical structure of concept. For geographic ontology itself is a hierarchical structure(smith et al., 1998; Mark et al., 1999), hyponymy has reason to be an important relation in the lexical relation of geographic information. In terms of expression of geographic concept, phonetics, lexics and syntax have the effect of constraint. The actual category of language unit is much less than that of geographic concept so that they are not the relation of one-to-one. The following situations are possible:! A geographic concept has no related word, as fire not on most map symbol system;! One geographic concept has one related word, as chimney, cave etc.;! One geographic concept has multiple words, as river has single-line and double-line etc.;! One geographic concept is the combination of multiple words, as slope and valley;! Multiple geographical concepts are included in one word, as stadium include raceway, stand, exit etc.! Multiple geographical concept corresponds to one word, as pond and lake have just one corresponding word. The difference is the essence of representation by which infinite concept can be expressed by finite symbols.

4 3.2.3 Meronymy Meronymy refers to the part whole relation of object or object class represented by words. In linguistic structure of geographic information, meronymy is especially important for any geographic feature is essentially compound one consisting of many parts. Smith & Mark(1998, 1999) regard Mereology as one of three basic tools for ontological investigation of geographic kind, and Mereology is actually the main concern of formal ontology in Knowledge Engineering (Simons 1987;Guarino 1995). We can find meronymy in geographic lexic system as:! Some word is composed of many parts by itself. For instance, block is actually composed of building, street, square, grass and so on. Reservoir is composed of water body, boundary and dam etc.! Some word can be defined only in the whole context. For instance, Exit must be defined as a part of construction; water boundary must be defined as a part of hydrological feature etc. While Hyponymy has epistemic attribute, Meronymy has strong ontological attribute. Meronymy is more dominated by the internal physical rules of reality Antonymy Antonymy refers to the contrary relation of objects. There are different category of antonymy such as gradable antonym, binary antonym and relational antonym. Antonymy is also reflected in geographic information as follows:! Morphology-driven Antonymy curve/straight, regular/irregular! Class-driven Antonymy Block/street, sea/land, mountain/plain, valley/ridge, urban/countryside! Attribute driven Antonymy Highway/auto way, Long-standing river/seasonal river! Relation driven Antonymy above/below, overlap/overlapped, contain/contained 4. SYNTAX Syntax is a very important concept, either in the view of linguistic system such as phonetics-lexics-syntax, phonetics-syntax-semantics or syntax-semantics- pragmatics, where syntax is always at the heart of the system. The function of syntax is to integrate language units with different physical features and conceptual meaning into higher language unit which conforms to regulations and conveys a certain meaning. Just as phonetic and semantic structure, syntax has its internal structure. In syntax (grammar), lexis and syntax are two different units, which function in building of word and sentence respectively. 4.1 Elementary Spatial Relations in Geographic Information Earth surface is an infinitely complex system. The linguistic paradigm regards geographic information as a hierarchical structure constructed by multiple levels of language units associated by various combination relations. As in natural language, to reveal the internal structure of geographic information must begin from the most elementary combination relations. What kind of spatial relations exist between spatial entities is always a hot topic in Geographic Information Science (Egenhofer, 1989). Following are some binary relations which reveal some combination relation from respective angles Topological relation Topological relation refers to the relations remaining unchanged under the topological transformations such as shifting, rotating and scaling, which are most talked about in node-arc-polygon representation in digital map in earlier time (ESRI, 1995). The point-set based topological relation (Egenhofer et. al., 1991) brought a leap to the recognition of topological relations. The 4- and 9-intersection models describe topological relations with mathematical and logical enumeration of totality. After discovering that they are somewhat loose in real word situation, more metrical factors are introduced to refine the relations based on the idea topology matters, metric refines (Egenhofer and Mark,1995; Shariff and Egenhofer, 1998). Topological relations are the most stable and yet most important ones in geographic features so that they are very easy to cognize and store in computation system. However, based on the following reasons, more combination relation of different types must be investigated.! Firstly, topological relations are loose relations whose requirement is very easy to meet. By the further refinement of spatial relation we must seek other type of relation. Some word can be defined only in the whole context.! Secondly, disjoint relation take the most part of spatial relation in the real world. For those disjoint entities we need also other type of relation.! Thirdly, as a highly formalized description, topological relations need semantic and ontological constraint in pragmatic context.

5 4.1.2 Metrical Relation If topological relation can be said having been thoroughly investigated, we have no much knowledge about what be roughly called metrical relation. Metric and topological are not two contrary concepts, but two aspect of the same spatially distributed phenomenon. Different forms of topological and metric relation hold between any two spatial entities. Both of them can be computed from their positions. Topological relation gives its qualitative aspect and metric relation gives other aspect of quantity. The only way to describe metric relation is to approximate graphics as accurate as possible in analog representation. Direction relation and distance relation can be defined between any two points, lines and areas. Because metric relation is difficult to process in a qualitative way like topological one, metric relation is neglected in most Geographic Information research. Some more complicated definition comes from qualitativation of direction and distance relation for the sake of simulating human s qualitative reasoning (Peuquet and. Zhan, 1987; Papadias and Sellis, 1994). 4.2 Combinational Qualitativation of Metric Relation In a spatial distribution we can instinctively feel that some spatial relation is stronger than the others so that some features are easier to form new feature, some are difficult and some are impossible. So spatial relation has combination function in linguistic viewpoint:! Spatial relation can act as verb to combine words into spatial proposition.! Language units with same or similar meaning (synonymy or hyponymy) can form new sentence, and also be easy to be replaced by new higher language unit.! Combination can take place only between those language units with certain spatial relations.! When 2 and 3 meet, the phonetics begins to take effect. The physical feature of the language units constrained the combination. Then phonetics attribute is so-called Morphology, or Gestalt attributes (Guarino, 1997).! Combination is also constrained by the structure of wider range, e.g., the combination of blocks is constrained by the structure of street network. Here we find topological play a less important role than pattern of buildings. Metric relation is more obvious here. For further definition of spatial combination of geographic entities, we need further refinement of our spatial information theories, first of all making metric relation a qualitative one. Some scholar has pointed out topological relation in geographic domain is not genuine topological in the sense of topology (Smith and Varzi, 1997). In fact the most common examples of them are shifting, rotating and scaling, and map projections are also included, but most of the projections are below second-order transformation. If we hold suppose:! Fist-order transformation is limited in shifting, rotating and scaling, and,! map projection is blow second order, and spatial scale is relatively small; Then the two values, Definition 1: R l = d 34 / d 12, while d 12 d 34 d 12 / d 34, while d 12 < d 34 ; where d 12, d 34 are distance between point 1 to point 2 and between point 3 to point 4 respectively Definition 2: D a = a 12 -a 34 where a 12, a 34 are azimuth between point 1 to point 2 and between point 3 to point 4 respectively will remain unchanged basically. We can define an intermediate geometry, called Combinational Qualitative Geometry (CQG), based on the two invariants, ratio of length and difference of azimuth. From the two atomic properties, more qualitative aspects of metric relation can be deduced Distance Combinational Relation Distance Syntagmatic Relation is based on invariant R l. Suppose two line segment o 1 and o 2, we distinguish following two relations: Definition 3: if R l = 1, o 1 and o 2 is called to have Equal-Length Relation, noted as o 1 El o 2. Definition 4: if R l = 1/2, o 1 and o 2 is called to have Double-Length Relation, noted as o 1 Dl o 2.

6 Equal-length relation is a very usual combinational relation in geographic space. Its ontological basis is most spatial features esp. artificial features have their statistically invariant magnitude range, such as for breadth of street, length of river branch. In spatial association the occurrence of equal-length relation will increase dramatically Direction Combinational Relation Direction Combinational Relation is based on D a. we distinguish following two relations, Definition 5: D a =0º, o 1 and o 2 is called to have Parallel Relation, noted as o 1 Pa o 2. Definition 6: D a =90º, o 1 and o 2 is called to have Perpendicularity Relation, noted as o 1 Pp o 2. Parallel and perpendicularity relations are also very usual relation in geographic space. Its ontological basis are, firstly, direction relation belongs to circular level of measurement, which has much smaller variant range comparative with length. Secondly, people have limitation in discerning tiny angular difference. Thirdly, inherent physical rules result in more parallel and perpendicular distributive pattern in geographic space. And fourthly, gestalt rules has also their influence in artificial constructive features Composition of Combinational Qualitative Relations (CQRs) The composition of CQR with other spatial information results in dramatic increase of spatial relation. Generally, suppose two objects o 1 and o 2, which meet relation R and S respectively, its sum is noted as R+S, o 1 (R+S) o 2 o 1 Ro 2 o 1 So 2, where is or n atomic relations will result 2 n sum of relation. Among all of them, product of R and S is defined, o 1 (R S) o 2 o 1 Ro 2 o 1 So 2 where is and a) Simple Composition of CQR with Topological Relation M l Noting those topological relation where two linear features with intersected boundary but null-intersected interior as M l, we can define simple composition as Fig. 2. b) Pa M l Based Multiple Composition With Pa M l based multiple composition we can define co-linearity, sequence and direct neighborhood relations. Figure 2. Composition of CQR with topological relation Definition 7: Definition 8: Definition 9: For set of line segments S={o 1,o 2,, o n n 3}, if at least one o j S makes o i (Pa M l )o j for each o i S, S is called a Line Co-Linearity Set. Any number of elements above two have Line Co-Linearity Relation, noted as Cl. For set of points P={p 1, p 2,, p n n 3}, if the set S={l i,j 1 i<n, 1 j<n } composed of the connection of the any two elements of set P is a Line Co-Linearity Set, then P is called a Point Co-Linearity Set. Any number of elements above two have Point Co-Linearity Relation, noted as Cp. For any sequence s o ={ o j o j S } by the subset of a Co-Linearity Set S, if o j (Pa M l )o j+1 and Xo j X o j+1 (where means > or < ) hold for each element o j and its successive element o j+1, s o is called a Sequence Relation based on set S, noted as Sp. Meanwhile, Nd = {(o j, o j+1 )} is Direct Neighborhood Relation. CQRs based on metric relation could be regarded as the atomic spatial relations on extended geographic feature, which are immediately applicable to some artificial and natural features such as block and pipe system, but may vary with the most natural features with real geographic configuration. CQRs are to loose their constraint further. 4.3 Linguistic Anamorphosis of Spatial Relations By defining CQRs, the shortage of too loose constraint of topological relation and too strong constraint of metric relation could be overcome to some extend. They can act as the combination mechanism between different level of language units together with topological and metric relation to form the whole language structure.

7 So far most GISs depend heavily on Euclidean Geometry. However, much research reveal that the structure of geographic information is not merely a geometric matter, instead, more an ontological, epistemic and (natural) linguistic matter. Spatial relation provides us with syntactic rules, which can establish linguistic structure meaningful to convey real and meaningful information only integrated with phonetics and semantics Phonetic Anamorphosis of Spatial Relation Comparative with natural language system, one of the particularity of geographic information as linguistic system is that spatial relation as syntax is strongly related to the physical property of associated object as phonetics, where scale and distance play very important roles. The representation of spatial relation begins at the stage of phonetics. At the stage of Superasegment, based on curve and minimal simple polygon, we can define more spatial relation which are the phonetic anamorphosis of both topographic relations and CQRs such as the sequence of same level of curves, containing of different level of curves and contacting of multiple level of minimal simple polygon as in double-line river system. Especially CQRs will loose their phonetic constraints to accommodate the situation of natural distribution, where curve based parallel, perpendicularity relation and equal-length relation can be defined Syntactic Anamorphosis of Spatial Relation In syntax spatial relation has double aspects of function. Based on the context it occurs, spatial relation can be grouped into two linguistic units, one is verb and another is constraint between language units. According to the definition of sentence, geographic information tells what is where. The type of sentences follow: 1) The Building is there 2) The Building is beside of the river 3) The building is to the north of that building. In sentence of type 1), word is connected with reference system. It reflects a spatial situation. In sentence of type 2), spatial relation of two objects with different semantics is given; here relative position is more important than absolute position. In sentence of type 3), spatial relation of two objects with the same semantics is given. As a different point, objects in this sentence are liable to merged into a new language unit when some condition is satisfied as neighborhood. In this case spatial relation tends to be constraint between language units instead of acts as verb Semantic Anamorphosis of Spatial Relation From geometric viewpoint, spatial information has its geometric components. One combination of the components can define one spatial relation solely. As in 9-intersection model and CQRs spatial relations are more from the view of this kind of geometric component analysis. On the other hand, semantics of spatial information has its ontological basis. By linguistic approaches we can investigate ontological semantics based on the participants of relations as following:! Dimensionality property: A certain spatial relation has requirement of dimensionality for participants. As an example, containing relation requires a area object as container;! Active/passive: Some spatial relation implies the relation of active/passive. For example, line may be active than area in line/area relation as road gets through park.! Vertical relation: although two-dimensional spatial relations are defined on plain, participants are not always on a plain. Following situations are possible:! On one plain: as road and farm field;! Above: as bridge and river! Below: as tunnel and mountain! Uncertain: as highways at cross.! Compatibility: some spatial relations require the compatibility of the participants, otherwise is impossible in reality. For example, conceptual object such as political boundaries can share location with river while highway can t.! Spatial constraint property: some spatial relations imply the spatial constraint and correlation such as parallel relation.! Cause property: Such spatial relation as co-linearity, equal-length implies artificial construction. Some certain pattern implies certain natural cause etc.

8 Table 1. Semantic anamorphosis of the same spatial relation in different contex Spatial Relation Participant Semantic anamorphosis Road, park Go through Bridge, river Cross over Line/area Dam, river Block the water of Overlapping Ferry course, river Get across the surface of Waterfall, river Fall as the part of Reef, sea Submerging in Area/point Elevation point, road On the surface of containing Buoy, river Floating on Cave, mountain In The semantic feature of geographic information is the prerequisite for our better understanding of geographic space. They are linguistic knowledge standing apart from concrete geographic configuration. Table 1 gives an illustration of how certain spatial relation obtain their semantic anamorphosis in ontological context. 5. CONCLUSION As in this paper, even mere from the microcosmical and technological approach, we can see that linguistic paradigm of geographic information has at least four aspects of significance for the development of GIScience, i.e., its paradigm potential, its ontological concern, its methodological guidance and its qualitative approach. In the framework of linguistic paradigm, we have carried out some technical practice on map symbol recognition (Du, 1998) and the linguistic analysis of multimedia electronic atlas (Du, 2001). The further research will include the investigation of how the physical features and its ontological knowledge could be integrated into the spatial relations to enhance the automatic understanding ability of geographic information system and how it can benefit spatial data mining and knowledge discovering. On the other hand, the possibility of an investigation of map semiotic system across spatial, temporal and cultural coverage with the aim to reveal the evolution of human spatial cognition is also within our sight. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to acknowledge the support of Natural Scientific Foundation of China under project No , No and Hok Ying Tung Education Foundation for the research. 7. REFERENCES [1] Bertin, J Visual Perception and Cartographic Transcription, World Cartography 15: [2] Borgo, S., Guarino, N., and Masolo, C Stratified Ontologies: the Case of Physical Objects. In: Proceedings of ECAI-96 Workshop on Ontological Engineering. Budapest. [3] Buitelaar, P Lexical Semantics in Information Systems, lexsem/2001/lexsem.html [4] Du, Q. Y Linguistic characteristics and automatic understanding of cartographic information. In: Proceeding of the 18 th International Cartographic Conference, Stockholm, [5] Du, Q. Y Map language based cartographic understanding, in: Proceeding of 98 ACSM Annual Conference and Exhibition, Baltimore, [6] Du, Q. Y From Micro to Macro: An Exploratory into the Structure of Multimedia Electronic Atlas. In: Proceeding of the 20 International Cartographic Conference, Beijing [7] Egenhofer, M A Formal Definition of Binary Topological Relationships, in: W. Litwin and H. Schek (eds.), Third International Conference on Foundations of Data Organization and Algorithms (FODO), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Paris, France, Vol. 367, Springer-Verlag, [8] Egenhofer, M. and Franzosa, R Point-set topological spatial relations. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems, 5: [9] Egenhofer, M. J., and Mark, D. M., Naive Geography, in Frank and Kuhn (eds.), European Conference on Spatial Information Theory Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Semmering, Austria, Vol. 988, Springer- Verlag, 1-15 [10] Egenhofer, M. and Shariff, R Metric Details for Natural-Language Spatial Relations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 16 [11] Guarino, N Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 43(5/6): [12] Guarino, N Some Organization Principle For A Unified Top-Level Ontology, in: Working Notes of AAAI Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford

9 [13] Head, C. G Warp and Woof: Carto-semiotics and Carto-linguistics in the English-language Literature, in: Map Semiotics around the World, ICA Publication [14] Mark, D. M Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space: Report on a Workshop. NCGIA Technical Paper 88-3 [15] Mark, D. M. et al Languages of Spatial Relations: Initiative Two Specialist Meeting Report, Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Report [16] Mark, D. M Spatial Representation: A Cognitive View, In: Geographic Information System: Principles and Applications, edited by David Maguire et al., New York, NY: Longman Scientific & Technical [17] Mark, D. M. and Frank, A.U NCGIA Initiative 2 Languages of Spatial Relations Closing Report. [18] Mark, D. M., Smith, B., and Tversky, B Ontology and Geographic Objects: An Empirical Study of Cognitive Categorization. In : Freksa, C., and Mark, D. M., editors, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, [19] Nyerges, T. L Geographic Information Abstractions: Conceptual Clarity for Geographic Modeling. Environment and Planning A 23, [20] Papadias, D. and Sellis, T On the Qualitative Representation of Spatial Knowledge in Two-Dimensional Space. Very Large Data Bases Journal., VLDB Special Issue on Spatial Databases [21] Peuquet, D. and. Zhan C.-X An Algorithm to Determine the Directional Relationship between Arbitrarilyshaped Polygons in a Plane. Pattern Recognition 20 : [22] Schlichtmann, H Codes in Map Communication. The Canadian Cartographer 16/1: [23] Schlichtmann, H Characteristic Traits of the Semiotic System Map Symbolism, Cartographic Journal 22/1: [24] Schlichtmann, H Map Symbolism Revisited Units, Order, and Contents, in: Pravda J. et al Cartographic Thinking and Map Semiotics, Geographia Slovaca 5, [25] Schlichtmann, H An Inventory of Research in Map Semiotics. In: Map Semiotics around the World, ICA Publication [26] Shariff, A. R. and Egenhofer, M. and Mark D Natural-Language Spatial Relations Between Linear and Areal Objects: The Topology and Metric of English-Language Terms, Internationa Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12/3: [27] Simons, P. M., Part: An Essay in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [28] Smith, B., and Varzi, A., Fiat and Bona Fide Boundaries: An Essay on the Foundations of Geography. In: S. C. Hirtle and A. U. Frank (eds.), Spatial Information Theory. International Conference COSIT '97. Laurel Highlands, Pennsylvania, (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1329), Berlin/New York: Springer Verlag, [29] Smith, B Basic Tools of Formal Ontology. In N. Guarino (ed.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems. IOS Press [30] Smith, B. & Mark, D. M Ontology and Geographic Kinds. Proceedings of SDH 98, Vancouver, Canada [31] Taketa, R. A Structure and Meaning in Map Generalization. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U. S. A. [32] Youngmann, C. E., A Linguistic Approach to Map Description. First International Advanced Study Symposium on Topological Data Structure for GIS. Vol. 7. Harvard University

10 A CARTO-LINGUISTIC PARADIGM TAKING A METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Du, Q. School of Resource and Environmental Science, Wuhan University, 129 Luoyu Rd., Wuhan, P. R. China. qydu@telecarto.com Biography Dr Qingyun Du is Professor of Cartography and GIS, and deputy director of School of Resource and Environmental Science at Wuhan University. His research interests include linguistic conceptual modal of geographical information, automatic cartographic generalization, electronic mapping and spatial visualization. He serves on 2 editorial boards for journals. He is corresponding member of ICA Commission on Theoretical Cartography and co-chairs for two Chinese association commissions on GIS and Cartography. He has lead more than 30 projects and received 8 national and ministerial scientific awards.